Good God! Why the Hell are they bringing this up again?

I'm not plural :D

Mix up in my reading of the journal.

not agian..

What can I say, I'm naturally curious.

Eh. What are you talking about exactly? The failures that lead to not bushing the people who perpetrated the act, the actual fall of the twin towers, or the eficence that Flight 93 was shot down isntead of crashing while being 'retaken'?

I'm pretty much interested in the evidence provided that proves the official version of events as well as the clear story, as best as can be described, of the events.

Noee of them kept their phones on during the actual assault on the cockpit either.

We have evidence of intentions, but none of action.

All I'll say is that when a jet liner crashes, you get a desbris field a few hundred yards across.

In flight 93, there was quite a bit of desbris from the interior cabin spread out several miles from the site, the sort of thing that only happens when there's a breach of the interior prior to the crash.

Also consider that the Air National Guard F-16s that were scrambled returned only after the crash and with..ah..less ordinance than they left the airfield with. It's not hard proof, but I'm wondering why we haven't seen the black boxes from Flight 93 yet?

The debris that was spread over miles had no debris from the body of the aircraft. If the passengers had opened one of the doors, then this makes perfect sense. If a missile had struck the aircraft there would most certainly have been this type of debris. A missile attack would also have caused the flight to end immediately. If I'm not mistaken the aircraft stayed in the air for several miles and porpoised up and down repeatedly before going into an irrecoverable dive.

A little background information on missiles. The two types of anti-aircraft missiles work by going after either heat (short range) or by radar reflection (short to long range) and each hit the aircraft in different areas. Heat seeking missiles obviously go after engine exhaust while radar guided missiles usually hit areas of large radar cross-sections, such as tails. Neither of which were found anywhere except at the crash site. Anti-aircraft missiles also do not physically impact their targets, they carry annular blast fragmentation warheads that literally shred their targets. I can assure you that a 20 lb. warhead used against a civilian airliner would leave enough chewed up debris that a child would be able to see any evidence.

I don't know about the F-16's lack of ordinance and so can't comment on them, but links with evidence would be nice. :)

Yeah, that's always the part that makes this difficult.

Whenever there's a conspiracy, the anti-government conspiracy nuts flock to it with their own interpretations and do all the work of discrediting the notion before any serious investigation can begin.

*sigh* All I want is to see what's on the black box and cockpit voice recorder.

They found the black boxes 2 days after the crash. The transcripts from the voice recorder was used in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. In April 2002, the relatives of the victims were aloud to listen to the tapes from the cockpit voice recorder. All of this is made clear in the 9/11 Commission Report. Copy of the transcript: http://download.npr.org/anon.npr-www/documents/2006/apr/moussaoui/cockpit_transcript.pdf

The report also says that according to overwhelming evidence, the closest fighters were nearly 100 miles away and unarmed.

A lesser person would say 'unarmed before or after they shot down the plane!? LOL!!1"

If you want I can go into the logistical difficulties of hastily preparing fighters and getting them into a position where they could have done any good. :)

The only aircraft that was intercepted by the military was a false alarm, Delta Flight 1989. Everybody was literally caught with their pants down on 9/11.

There is also the problem that the flight was on civilian radars at the time of the crash and there was no evidence that other aircraft were in the area.

What evidence do you have against the official version of events? It's up to the detractor to prove the original a negative, not the other way around.

I'd like to see what the official story is based upon. If there is no evidence to support it then it can only be speculation. Any theory with better supported evidence is predominantly the the superior one. By this logic I assume that the official story has considerably better evidence than the one supported by "truthers".

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

Get to reading.

This is actually very useful thanks!

I would be interested if that document has the credibility it does now in some decades time. I suspect we'll begin to get a more honest look at things in 20-30 years time. Think the JFK assassination and the Warren Commission. The idea that Oswald didn't act alone is no longer simply the province of conspiracy nuts. That has taken near on 50 years to happen.

Point being, it's too soon to make honest judgments about what happened and why as a society. Once we start having adults too young to remember 9-11, then it will be possible to begin objectively investigating the available evidence to draw conclusions or point out inconsistencies in the official story. People are still too clouded by emotions, stories (e.g. rumors) they've heard, and things they've seen on the teevee or heard on...**chord** talk radio **shudders** to be able to make any kind of detached and objective judgments such as those the OP seeks.

I think that times may change, but in this case I see too much evidence supporting the governments case and almost no evidence rejecting it. Plenty of theories but no evidence. As I recall, the big difference with JFK were the audio tapes that capture more shots than one person could have gotten off. I just don't see that kind of evidence here. I guess we'll know in 50 years. :)

Three shots were fired in less than three to five seconds. That's not imnpossible at all. I'm sure *I* could fire a Karkano three times in that period of time. The theory that there were more shots than one man could have fired has been disproven time and time again.

Three well placed shots with a bolt action from somebody who, from past accounts, wasn't a very good shot. I don't know a whole lot about the events that took place because I haven't bothered to research it. I just recall that data point as being the one that stuck out the most.

Oswald had military training.

I've seen a complete novice 'aim, cock, fire' the same model of rifle three times in five seconds.

As I recall he had military training, but really sucked. But after I looked this up he apparently shot just above the level to be required a sniper. Guess you learn something new everyday.

And group all the shots in one guy? Doubtful.

No. Oswald missed the first shot. It bounced off the curb. The second went through Kennedy's neck straight into the Texas governor or whoever (the "magic bullet" theory places that guy directly in front of JFK... he was actually a litle to the left. A rather straight shot as opposed to the theory) Then the third managed to blow Kennedy's brains out, sending the head back as a blast of brain matter shot out the hole with the bullet.

That's still one fucking miraculous grouping considering how rushed his aim was.

Not at all. His first shot was way off target. His second hit. Once he had his aim down, the rapidity of his firing didn't take much more aiming. That and you only need a little over three seconds to fire (because he probably cocked and aimed a few moments prior to the first shot.), cock, aim, fire, etc. You don't need to be an expert marksman or have God on your side when you've got three seconds to kill a man and you've already hit him once.

But what you just said would have put the last shot OUT of that rapid succession.

Why can't you just realise that there were MULTIPLE shooters. It's not hard to find three like minded individuals.

Because there WEREN'T multiple shooters. It was not an ambush by some Military douchebags sent by LBJ. I don't see how what I said would put the third shot out of rapid succession. He fired once, issed, fired a second time, hit JFK, cocked, aimed again and now that his aim was closer, luck brought the bullet through the president's skull. There was no one on the Grassy nole. Just one asshat on the sixth floor of the library.

I'm done. You probably haven't even fired a real gun, so you don't realise that every shot pulls your aim completely off mark.

You haven't won, I'm just sick of talking to you.

I have shot several guns before and I know that hitting a target the size of a dinner plate at a range of 65 feet is pretty easy. 4.8 to 7 seconds for 3 shots at a range of 65 feet is not that hard to do. I was always under the impression that the distance was much greater than it was in actuality.

Yeah, even if the firing the rifle threw his aim off, it would NOT be enough to make him miss. It does not take ten seconds to aim a rifle back an inch or so. And how do you know I've never fired a gun? Have YOU? And just because you have doesn't mean that qualifies for anything at all. Unless you've fired a karkano and it knocked you're aim three feet to the side or up or down, then you have no argument.

I say you don't want to talk because you don't want to be disproven. Well, I as a true skeptic do. Go ahead. Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were more than one gunman. Go on, I'm waiting.

And why can't you see that it's perfectly possible for someone with military training to use a firearm to aim and fire three shots in five seconds?

As I said, a novice can achieve that rate of fire, and someone with training can make them count.

As was mentioned, Oswald qualified at sharpshooter class during his time in the marine corps. So he was quite proficient with a firearm.

I know I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say credible sources.

What defines their credibility? Besides that it doesn't matter what a credible source says if there is no physical evidence to support it.

Which part are you wanting physical evidence of?

Any? Preferably all the major points surrounding the events, not just the building collapse.

Give me a starting point.

Well, how about how we know the identities of the Hijackers.

Mostly because people phoned home with the seat numbers of the hijackers and descriptions. From there the FBI begins looking at video footage of of the actual purchase of the tickets.

FBI release of hijackers names:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm

This wiki has some of the best references and external links I've ever seen on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks

The list is unfortunately unreliable since many of those suspects listed are still alive. Likely the hijackers would have had to have used stolen passports. Thus their identities and tracking information cannot be deemed reliable.

6 of the 19 highjackers used stolen identities, the rest were positively identified. The FBI released the names and photos of the terrorists 3 days after the attack, so I'm surprised that there weren't more errors. 2/3 right after 3 days of investigation looks pretty good to me. The FBI fully recognized the cases of mistaken identity less than two weeks later, which is excellent work for a government agency. However, the people who had their identities stolen were probably VERY motivated to help in any way possible.

The links at the bottom of the wiki page go into great detail about who the terrorists were, how they bought the tickets, where they sat on the aircraft, the roles that some of them played, and who the mistaken identities were. I don't think it will ever get better than that.

We won't find everything about everyone because nobody was under intense scrutiny before 9/11. If we were a police state we might have found out about the attacks beforehand, but I don't think it would be worth the price. Any attempt to find their actual identities were undoubtedly stopped long ago, since our intelligence services have other problems to deal with.

Does the involvement of the hijackers preclude the notion of the alternative theory?

Which theories do you want to compare it to? Give me something to work with and I'll try to go from there.

If it was a government plot, I wonder where they found the convenient bunch of terrorists?

The same way they get soldiers for the military, they recruited them.
If even regular police can effectively perform sting operations then likely US intelligence personnel can take it one step further.

I don't think that terrorists would be swayed by college tuition and job opportunities like most soldiers are.

The problem with this scenario is that as it gets more complex you need to involve increasing numbers of people with an ever larger chance of exposure. At what point would one person think that they are going too far, or have more to gain by exposing the plot?

Police stings are small jobs with very few people involved over a short period of time. This would take a far greater number of people that are all believable by the suspects for a very long time. It could be done, by that doesn't make it likely or correct. To put it bluntly, I could say that aliens or ex-KGB Spetsnaz, NeoNazi Gestapo, or any other group did it, but without some type of evidence that is better than what we have currently its just a theory.

Not all recruitment methods are so honest, just look at cults.

It's easy to dismiss something as overly complicated and therefore impossible. The only thing necessary is for a few people in positions of power to orchestrate such an event. Not everyone involved needs to know the full plan in order to do their part.

I actually have looked at cults and most of their recruitment efforts are about getting people 'hooked' into the organization. The most common means are guilt, responsibility, sense of belonging, or charisma.

Not everybody needs to know, but that still makes a very high number. You need to recruit, supply, guide, and support the terrorists. If you believe that explosives were used to need somebody that can handle security without leaving any records, dozens of specialized demo experts, security details, and every single person that got close enough to the ruins to find evidence of explosives. Those are just the people that had to know incriminating evidence in order to do their jobs. That right there is at least a thousand people working over a period of months to years. It only takes one person to blow the whole thing wide open. All of this has to takes place without anybody finding out about it. Not a logical expectation.

There are numerous organizations with the capacity and methodology you describe. You don't have to assume that they were all recruited for just this one task.

As you've pointed out it only takes one person to blow a conspiracy wide open. But that idea does not apply anymore since any person doing such a thing is labelled a conspiracy nut.

What's worse is that many of the people that were clearing the ruins did end up dying from exposure to the dust.

Just as in a cult fanaticism is incredibly powerful and you can get fanatics to do absolutely anything.

I don't know of any US agency or organization that would voluntarily kill thousands of innocent American civilians. The oft quoted "Operation Northwoods" wasn't even supposed to kill any innocents.

One person could still blow the conspiracy if they had any proof. At almost any moment in the months of planning time that would be required to pull this off, somebody could have blown the whistle. It's all about evidence, and there is no evidence that it was a conspiracy.

I don't know about people dying from smoke inhalation, but that still doesn't put a control over people that saw the debris being moved. Since it was such a public event, the removal process was under constant watch and nobody saw evidence of explosive residue in the wreckage itself. Once again, no evidence.

Fanatics might be able to try anything but this operation would require more than fanatics. It would require vast numbers of well trained, smart, and loyal individuals carefully positioned over the course of years. If there was an organization that could pull this off, they could easily have planted a bomb for us to find in Iraq. If they wanted to be productive they could have found OBL by now. There is no evidence for this either.

The dust from the collapse was quite deadly to the clean up crews and rescue workers. However the cleanup was very much non-public. Much of the debris was carted off in sealed trucks. In addition to that none of the typical disaster relief agencies including FEMA were allowed near the site.
The wreckage was also shipped immediately overseas to be smelted. There was never an opportunity to closely examine any evidence.

For an example of fanatic infiltration. There is a specific very well known extremely insidious cult that has done exactly that. I won't mention it by name because they're very litigious but I will say that they boast of their celebrity members and believe in an evil alien overlord.

Check out their infiltration skills.

Dust is usually very bad to breath in, no surprise. It's irrelevant to the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

As far as FEMA not being allowed to enter, that is false. Link: http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/ci/v7no1/v7no1_7_e.html

Most disaster relief organization are involved in situations where there are survivors. There were obviously no survivors here, so what good could they do?

If you are trying to avoid saying Christianity, just spit it out. Just because you think their beliefs are weird, doesn't mean they would have the ability to handle the 9/11 attacks without getting caught. That would be like blaming 9/11 on all Muslims. It also still doesn't explain how the group can control access to the entire cleanup effort. One person seeing evidence of explosives would blow the whole thing.

She's referring to Scientology.

I'm not trying to say christianity. I'm referring to a large and dangerous cult. Invented by a science fiction author.

The article you posted stated that FEMA and the other groups came in in october to assess the evidence. I think in that amount of time much of it would already have been carted away.

If you believe that is the case, then have have no idea about how much it takes to remove over 500,000 tons of debris, 185,000 tons of it steel. Especially when they were still recovering structural steel as of January of this year. Remember that one piece with evidence is all that would be needed. Also recall that enough explosives would have been used to set off bomb sniffing dogs from several blocks away.

If you aren't trying to say Christianity, then come out and say what you mean. Doesn't matter how big it is, who invented it, or how weird their creed is. Just because they are different, doesn't make them capable of pulling this off. There is no clear motive, no clear opportunity, would be more difficult than what actually happened, and most importantly there is no proof!

If you are going to make wild accusations like this, then you don't actually want proof. You wanted support and evidence of the events that happened from us, and you retaliate with pure supposition without answering the flaws in the conspiracy theory itself. Your own words say "Any theory with better supported evidence is predominantly the the superior one." yet you don't address the many flaws and complete lack of evidence in the conspiracy theories. So what is it that you actually want?

Do you know if there were bomb sniffing dogs within several blocks? That would actually be something very interesting to look into.

I have no clue. But I know that they had rescue workers, with rescue dogs, looking for survivors immediate after the collapse. This also means that steel evidence couldn't have been removed for at least a 10 days. http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0210580/Tails.htm

If you assume that some of the rescue dogs were cross trained to detect explosives, I would assume they had everything they needed already on site.

The dangerous cult created by a science fiction author is L. Ron Hubbard's Sceintology.

Thank you. It is really quite irrelevant to the discussion, but it is still useful information to know. I was just trying to get across that it doesn't really matter what nefarious organization you want to blame the events on. Motive, expertise, money, and ability doesn't come with being weird or different. It's just as bad as blaming the attacks on all muslims or the religion of Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

conspiracy theories are almost always based on more or bigger assumptions then what is commonly held as the truth. Read the article please if you don't know the principle of occham's razor

Like I said, I'm barking up the wrong tree.

The evidence for was from witnesses. The offical report states that even Al Qaeda themselves owned up to it to get us to finally fight them like Clinton wouldn't.

The evidence against is from conspiracy theorists that will say anything to get attention. And somehow most people believe there is something behind the scenes. Much like the Alien hunters out there that want to believe area 51 has alien spacecrafts in thier hangers. It's a secret base for new military aircraft development.

Do we have any credible witnesses? There are numerous accounts, many of which are conflicting and some which have even changed their stories.

Which, is of course, the norm with human witnesses. Time passes, memories change, get embellished, things added onto. And it's also expected, since no two people interpret the same event in the same way.

Which is exactly why human witnesses cannot be deemed a credible source of information.

Human witnesses are rarely good sources of information when they are used on there own. The reason that it works in a situation like 9/11 was that multiple people independently gave reports of what was going on as it was happening. That is the best time to get accounts because there is no time for your memory to start playing tricks on you. Anything that people says after about 2 months isn't worth the breath it takes to make a statement.

Video witnesses can be though. And right up to the begining when the first plane hit we have that. Flight 93 is a different story but we have recorded evidence and families who have given their accounts of phone calls, the conversations with them as it happend.

But as far as evidence goes where is the concrete evidence we knocked the towers down, that we blew up Flight 93. Now mind you there were fighters on their way to intercept it before it went down. That is a known fact.

The truth is as it stands we have more evidence that it was a terroist act than a government plot.

There is no concrete evidence indicating conclusively that only the plane or the plane in addition to explosives was the cause either. All the rubble was very quickly removed and hidden from sight during the clean up process.

There is not complete concrete evidence for anything. We can give enough evidence to support something beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is always room for gaps. In math we have theories and theorems, not facts, because mathematicians admit that they can only work with their understanding of what they have.

Using explosives to collapse the building doesn't make any sense because they wouldn't have done anything that a plane full of jet fuel wouldn't already do. If explosives were used, then who/when/how got through security and placed explosives. Since explosive residue is ridiculously easy to test for (just look at what they use at some airports these days) there would have been weeks to detect it.

The towers were designed to withstand such strikes and a fire that cannot overcome firefighters cannot take down a building that quickly. Explosives are necessary if those facts are true.

To counter those arguments the architects that built and designed the towers would have to be incompetent and the firefighters would have to be outright lying.

If you're wondering about how they got through security. Bomb sniffing dogs were removed in the weeks prior to the attack. There were numerous security shutdowns in the months prior. A large group of Israeli "artists" were living on I believe the 31st floor, for free, doing massive construction work for months without any security oversight. They also had the floor to themselves. They have been identified as former soldiers, though that is a given in Israel since everyone has to serve in the army.

In other words getting bombs in there would be quite easy.

I had also heard mention of army engineers going in and out of the building during one such security system shutdown. Though I cannot confirm the source of that info.

The towers were designed to withstand conventional explosive attack, not a bloody plane slamming into the side of them. I don't think it's possible to BUILD a skyscraper that can withstand a plane crashing into it, knocking the insulation off the support girders, and the intense heat of burning jet fuel heating the support structure to the point where it was no longer structually viable, and thus causing the cascade collapse effect.

The amount of explosives needed to bring down a building of that magnitude is an incredibly large one, even with precise charges.

Said charges have to be placed in certain areas and to be effective there have to be holes drilled to place them in there.

It takes WEEKS of CONVENTIONAL labor to create a controlled demolition of a building of that size. That NO ONE AT ALL who worked, lived, or maintained the buildings complete missed something of that sort is complete and utter ridiculousness.

You can't have a conspiracy both ways. An organization competant enough to carry out such a secret application of demolition and keep it hidden wouldn't allow for some loose minded goofs just to stumble across such a thing.

I can't find any information regarding israeli artists living on the 31st floor.

What I don't get is how people can say Bush is smart enough to set this up, but not smart enough to be a competent president. Is he a genius only at certain times or something? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So everybody decide whether Bush is a genius or a moron and stick with it! :P

Why is it assumed that Bush had anything to do with it?

I'm just repeating what others have said. If you don't believe Bush had anything to do with it, than who did? I think it was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed backed by Osama bin Laden.

Also for the effect of fire weakening steel, take a look at the recent gas tanker accident on that California highway.

Those buildings were not designed to withstand a wide-body Boeing 767 hitting it at high speed with a load of jet fuel. At the time that the towers began construction in 1966, the largest passenger aircraft at the time was the Boeing 727, a smaller, narrow-body aircraft. Since the WTC was built by the NYC Port Authority, they didn't need to follow city building codes and wouldn't have had to build a tower that rigorous. They didn't even install a sprinkler system until after a 1975 fire. The towers were also among the lightest towers of their size in the world. Their style of construction put most of their structural beams in the center of the tower itself.

These beams really don't like getting repeatedly shocked from events like a bombing in 1993 and the shock-wave from each aircraft hitting the towers. They also don't like being in a literal blast furnace from thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel at almost 1,000 degrees centigrade. Neither fireproofing nor steel would survive this for very long. Buildings are fragile, they are very hard to put up and easy to take down.

If I'm not mistaken firefighters got above the fire on WTC2 on the side opposite from where the aircraft had hit it in the corner. They had as much protection as possible and I have no problem understanding how this could have happened.

Just because Israelis had access to one floor of a 110 story building, doesn't mean they can get explosives to everywhere that needs them. This link http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf goes into great detail about how you can't just put a charge against a beam and blow it. That's why it takes months for a dedicated demolition crew, using heavy equipment to takedown a large building. The buildings also didn't fall as if their were explosives, nor were there the successive blasts necessary to do the job with explosives. You would have to get (literally) tons of specialized explosives on site in order to get the jobs done. Once again, do this for months without ANYBODY noticing. You also didn't address the fact that nobody has spotted evidence of blasted steel or the chemical markers that explosives leave.

I can go on, but please read the site first for info about the explosive side of the equation from explosive experts.

Any other points you would like me to address with long, drawn out, explanations? I'm trying to be brief but failing miserably. :P

But the point is that there was not only weeks but MONTHS of unsupervised heavy construction happening in secret within the building at all hours.

You should be wondering how they managed to live and work there for free without anybody getting suspicious.

The firefighter's radio communication came from the same floor as the plane impact.

The jet fuel hypothesis also falls apart given the size of the fireball in question as well as the description of the floor that was impacted by the firefighter as he was reporting the scene.

"Heavy construction" in one part of the tower isn't enough to get charges in the rest of the building. You can't put a big charge in one place and have it work. It takes a minimum of two cutting charges and one blasting charge per beam in order for it to work. And the charges must be placed directly against the beams (no insulation) in order for the cutting charges to do their work. The link I put in above goes over this in detail.

The jet fuel hypothesis is not impacted at all by the size of the fireball. The fireballs were not enough to completely use all of the 90,000 liters (72,000 kilos) of jet fuel. To put that in comparison the MOAB (largest non-Nuke bomb in history) is only 8482 kilos. The fuel that didn't burn outside the building was burning right next to the main support beams that had already experienced numerous shocks. What do expect it to do?

I don't know anything about the firefighter report. Do you have the sources for this information? I'd like to know exactly what I am responding too.

There's an audio recording in the second loose change video, there may also be an interview with the firefighter in question.

The individuals living on the floor in question had free run over the entire building, and as they were there 24/7 they could do their work at night. The first ring of power video presents this information as well as the identities of the people living there.

If the elevators were in the core of the building then they could have easily been working next to the support beams without anyone ever noticing anything.

But once again the question of why they were there in the first place is not easily answered.

Again the loose change idiots, you do realise they are funded by democrats, just like move-on.org. If you beleive loosechange you believe in aliens at area 51.

Links please. Links about the people that "lived" there as well please.

I have already said multiple times that you can't just place explosives on a beam, it needs to be uncovered and carefully applied completely around the beam. It is easy to see that you didn't read that link I posted earlier (http://www.implosionworld.com/Artic.....09-8-06%20.pdf) so please read it before commenting on this. I hate having to go over the same point that I have already addressed, new perspectives I can understand at least.

Those audio recordings in "Loose Change" say that he is at the very bottom of the fire and don't mention much beyond the fact he is there, they have casualties, and that he is going to start trying to put it out. Even though I haven't finished reading it myself, hearing is another link for you to look at that debunks most of what is shown in "Loose Change" and does a much better job of citing sources. http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

I don't have to answer why they were there. You need to answer why they shouldn't be.

Do you have a less direct link to the article? I can't open that link as it is automatically truncated.

Someone else posted a video in this discussion that overlayed audio with the destruction of the towers. This is the first time I've seen this done and you can both hear and see the the blasts occuring. There is no way to confirm what caused those blasts but it is clear from the footage that it corresponds to the small plumes of smoke that shot out of the sides of the building.

I'll have to check the video for their names as google is very lacking in information regarding them.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/Loo.....angeGuide.html

Stop pussy footing around and GO FUCKING READ THIS! ANYTHING you get out of Loose Change is incredibly suspect information.

Checked and found the section regarding the firefighter recording. You are correct he was not on the floor with the fire, but a few floors below.

There are so many articles here that mifmaf hasn't read it's nuts. I started reading this site when you first posted and I'm still not done going through it. It, unlike the movie, is actually based on facts.

My aim in asking my questions and providing the evidence I had was to get these kinds of articles. I'll have an extensive read through a little later. I don't argue that the theories presented in loose change aren't stupid. But if there is a hard piece of evidence then it's fair to use even if they presented it incorrectly.

My problem is that you haven't brought out any evidence. I checked through every single one of your posts, and you haven't posted any facts at all. No links, no expert testimony, no reports from credible sources, nothing. You have been posting baseless assumptions, denials, and half-truths while ignoring the points that people are making that reject the possibility of a conspiracy. Look how many times different people, in different ways, have shown that it would have been impossible to use explosives and get the affects seen on 9/11.

I don't argue that the theories presented in loose change aren't stupid.
Yet you have used information from "Loose Change" repeatably without regard to its factual inaccuracies. They most accurate thing that I saw in that piece of propaganda was that the buildings fell down.

I shall attempt to rectify that. But you'll have to wait till tuesday as I'm not currently on my home computer :P

Sorry bout that.

I have no problem with that, you have no reason to be sorry. It's just that you ask for links and info yet appear to reject requests for the same.

I'm not rejecting them, I'm actively trying to find them, but because of how specific the information is it's nearly impossible to find without first double checking the original source.

I've also been removing any specific information or sources because I cannot confirm it without looking back at the information.

I have a lousy memory :P

Yes please what pixman said do you have a source for this apparent firefighter communication. As I have said before I went to the races to get on with my life today, we need concrete evidence to the contrary of offical report and what was seen world wide on the television.

And I also agree with whoever said it, heavy construction on even a few floors would not be the cause because two freaking humungous passenger jets knocked out sevreal floors. The resulting fire and the fact the fire supression system would have been knocked out weakened the structure of both buildings as the fire softend the metal of the supports.

The second one hit fell first due to the location of the hit forcing more stress from the wieght of the building above.

It's all simple logic and physics.

There is not complete concrete evidence for anything. We can give enough evidence to support something beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is always room for gaps. In math we have theories and theorems, not facts, because mathematicians admit that they can only work with their understanding of what they have.

Using explosives to collapse the building doesn't make any sense because they wouldn't have done anything that a plane full of jet fuel wouldn't already do. If explosives were used, then who/when/how got through security and placed explosives. Since explosive residue is ridiculously easy to test for (just look at what they use at some airports these days) there would have been weeks to detect it.

dam double posts

The fallacy of using explosives has been covered repeatedly, yet continues to come up because of the people's perception of the Hollywood version of explosive work. So thank you for bring up the comparison.

I'm afraid I'll need further elaboration before I can make any judgement on this issue.

Check out a movie "Loose Change". That should help ya.

Not the loose change fools. Those democratically funded idiots. Don't fall for the conspiracy. Other wise you believe the aliens are at area 51.

Then, "Quick Change", perhaps?

More like "loose screws" or "quick publicity."

Loose Change has been debunked point by point here:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/Loo.....angeGuide.html

take it to Youtube.
(ps: I'm evil. i'm a triumphalist)

I am of the following opinion:

It happened.

Unfortunate as it is, and as terrible thing as it is, it happened. No amount of words or debate will change that fact.

It has more to do with the implications of the event rather than the event itself.

Eh.. I never could care too much about 9/11 ... Don't get me wrong, I think it's a tragedy that all those civilian people died.. but I don't think it's MORE of a tragedy than, say.. a massive hurricane. Or the number of yearly deaths through car accidents, disease, or anything else.

We bomb other countries until they look like the surface of the freakin' moon on a regular basis, but then someone destroys ONE of our buildings and we're like, "OMG! This is worse than all the hurricanes and fires and nuclear meltdowns and AIDS COMBINED!" ... that's just.. arrogant.

I second this notion.

I don't know about anybody else, but I think that both countries are doing pretty well today regardless of being bombed. Japan is in an even stronger position now than it has ever been in history. Welcome to the joy of American economic reconstruction. Every country we "occupy" becomes better than it was before.

I guess you two missed the memo. We're in a war right now. ^^ All those little middle-eastern countries were barren and desolate enough before we got there; by now they're basically big piles of rubble.

Essentially.. we're carrying out the crusades again. Just with more explosions and less raping and pillaging. Presumedly.

Just because we are bombing them doesn't mean we "bomb other countries until they look like the surface of the freakin' moon on a regular basis." I understand that war sucks for civilians caught in the crossfire, but lets not get ridiculous. The point that I was trying to make is that the two most heavily bombed countries in history recovered quickly to become better off than they were before.

You are sadly mistaken if you think that Iraq is becoming a big pile of rubble. The only area in Iraq that makes the news is an area that is less than 4% of their country. It would be like saying Rhode Island is all that matters in the US. The rest of the country is fairly secure and rebuilding. Comparing this to the Crusades is just pathetic.

This is very useful data that clearly shows who is responsible for what. Since IraqBodyCount.org is hardly a Pro-war or Pro-Bush site I think we may even be able to assume that the numbers aren't manipulated to support either one.

Good post.

When the number of Iraqis that have been killed here are compare to the number that Saddam killed, it wouldn't surprised me a bit if we have actually saved lives by being there.

Terrorists blew up two skyscrapers, damaged the Pentagon, and one plane crashed. What else is there to know? LOL I think this country thrives on controversy!

nothing occurs in a vacuum.

You'd probably care more if one of your family members had been involved. I would.

I blame it on Bush's administration. I get this itch that tells me it was a set-up to make him look good so he'd be re-elected. Yes, even with the loss of that many American lives.

I won't go further unless someone asks, though. It's just my own conspiracy theory.

If it was a ploy to get reelected wouldn't it have been better to wait towards the end of his term and not the beginning? It would also mean that the president that is currently the biggest idiot in the nation set up a plan to deceive us into going to war in less than 9 months? He is either really smart or dumb, you can't have both.

It gave his cabinet the entire term of office to feed off of the peoples' fear and desire for vengeance on the act, which in turn made his popularity rise due to the positive reaction on the actions he took. And no, I don't believe Bush planned it. I think he's just a figurehead running off his father's name, a puppet if you will.

Does what Bush gained then surpass what the war in Iraq has cost him since then? Where is the gain in it for him, or his father, or whoever else you want to blame? If he is a puppet, it still doesn't explain what has happened in Iraq. That just makes the manipulator both smart and dumb. Back to square one.

The manipulator gained the initial support of the people in the endeavor of going over to Iraq. Then they kept finding new reasons to stay there. the puppeteers are still profiting because they still have their hand in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they can implement a ruling party there that they have sway in, then they have access to the oil fields in the middle-east.

But thats my point. There is nothing in Afghanistan that benefits the US. Considering the uproar after 9/11 we probably could have gone right in with the full support of the American citizenry. We have very valid reasons to stay in Iraq, yet we haven't begun exploiting their biggest resource because we don't have the troops there to support it. If we were there for profit we would have sent over a bigger force concentrated in economically valuable areas. If the manipulator is smart enough to arrange 9/11 without getting caught, why didn't they arrange success in Iraq? They should have had an ideal puppet to step in right off the bat at the very least.

I'll just say that it's easier to manipulate information in the country where you have power than it is in a country where you're only an investor.

You have to do more than manipulate information, you have to literally OWN thousands of people that are guaranteed not to betray you. How much do you think the reward would be if you had proof that it was a conspiracy and you had the identity of the perpetrator?

The new puppet leader of Iraq doesn't have to have come from within the country. There are tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees around the world. In Iraq there is also the advantage of being able to bomb obstructionists who get in your way and blaming it on terrorists. I think it would be easier to control the people in Iraq who are used to being ruled by Saddam than here in the US.

So why are the democrats waiting until October of next year to bring the troops home?

I see a conspiracy right there to get dems elected.

Democrats, Republicans, is there really a difference anymore? Get right down to their basics and try to define their differences, then see if those differences really have some meaning.

Honestly I don't think there is a difference in either party. Both are crooks. But the tiny difference is that the republicans are the only ones to fight back. I mean we've been attacked by these people since Clinton's time in office.

I wish the FBI and CIA would have been smart enough to take the threats as they came like they already happend. Then we wouldn't have 3,000 dead and including Afghanistan and Iraq closer to 4,000 or more soldiers amongst the honored dead. We could have stopped this blasted war and severly heated arguements of conspiracies that keep coming back because people have to keep bringing it up.

I agree.

I have a bit of sympathy for the FBI and CIA because of the vast amount of data they must go through on a daily basis. Since we only hear, and remember, their failures they get a real bad deal. They are the convenient scapegoats for anything that goes wrong.

Your right of course, I shouldn't have phrased it the way I did. They have been able to stop recent possible attacks so they are paying greater attention. Fear peddling aside the new way seems to be working well.

So I retract my past statement and say instead they didn't have the man power to deal with the threat.

There is never enough manpower, or money, for intelligence services.

I bet if you doubled the money that goes into foreign intelligence gathering we would be finding even more terrorists before they have the opportunity to do harm. That's my two cents at least.

This is one of those things that really can't be proved in either direction. The evidence the U.S. government provided on that is the story they want you to think is air tight. There are discrepancies in it, but any time you have a multiple person investigation into multiple action points, there are discrepancies. I've seen evidence on both sides. Neither has convinced me in either direction and I've spent a lot of time reading up.

The way I look at it is this: Bush was elected and was not taken seriously at all. There were talks about removing him from office because he was incompetent and didn't really win the election. 9/11 happens and suddenly he was the savior of the nation for a few months. Like Rudy Giuliani, he was the man who was "There When It Happened." It wasn't until later when he had himself set up as the architect of a losing war against the wrong target that people started going, "Oh yeah! He's an idiot!" By that point, however, he had already won a second election.

I'm not saying it was staged entirely for the benefit of G.W. but I'm saying it certainly was timed right to save his administration. I'm also saying that there are so many different lines on this story that it's almost impossible to find anything like real truth in this. There are too many agendas served and too many spins put on the thing.

As for those of you who are saying, "This is the official report, this is what happened," remember Jonestown? A couple hundred people killed themselves to escape persecution, be it real or imagined, by agents of the federal government, who had harassed and hounded these private citizens on private property until their nutty leader suggested they should save themselves by drinking poison. The official line on this is that the feds didn't do anything to incite this action. The truth is they had the place surrounded and were blasting music at painful levels into the compound for 24 hours a day because they didn't know what was going on inside and the leader was a tax evader. You can't always trust the official line, nor can you trust a nutty, government hating conspiracy theorist.

Some true stories are lost to the toss of history. this one was just lost the moment it occured.

This raises the question. How often can your government lie to you before you stop believing everything they say?

It's really what the U.S. government is based on. Anybody who believes they're not being lied to by the U.S.government is really going to swallow whatever you sell them, such as: campaigning as one religion or another is in no way violating the mandatory separation of church and state.

I think this is what all governments are based on, but for a different reason than you probably think. Governments are made up of people, and people lie intentionally or by omission constantly, so why should we expect anything different?

Religion doesn't belong in politics. Period.

Hear, hear. The problem is that the U.S. government is so bad at lying about things. It's really sad, but people still believe them.

I don't think that the US government is any better or worse than any other government at lying. I think the problem is that we have so many people who are always questioning that it is harder to sneak by. The US has the third largest population in the world and it's people are amongst the richest, best educated, and in best living conditions in the world. Is it any wonder that it would be hard for a government to lie convincingly to so many people? There doomed to failure from the start, but it won't stop people from trying.

I will clarify my statement. The U.S. has failed with their lying so many times. They are repeatedly unsuccessful. They would be better off telling the general populace the truth than continually losing credibility.

I understand what you were trying to say. But since the people within the government change every 2 years, you can't say that it is always the same people doing the lying for the last xx number of years. Well you can say that politicians are lying, but I assume that will be the case regardless. I think that the reason it is so hard for the government to lie to the people is that there is a large portion of the population who are smart and who care. That's why I pointed out some of the demographics that make a difference. It's not that the government it lies poorly, it's that more people question this government than probably any other government in the world. They should tell the truth, but that is such anathema to a politician that even if they did tell the truth, we would assume that they are just hiding something.

But the situation reflects a policy of deception, self and otherwise, that leads to the general loss of credibility. The governmental structure supports keeping the people stupid and happy. This doesn't work when the stupid and happy represent only the vocal minority.

So what is the solution? Every large government acts like this at some point or another because it is run by people. People lie, cheat, and steal; so I don't expect a government run by people to be very different.

Well, one solution would be to disallow all politicians from having income while in office. Another would be the popular vote replacing the electoral college. Another would be checks and balances that actually check and balance. Another would be an elimination of bipartisanism and the bipartisan system all together.

There are many solutions to big government being too big. They won't come because the only ones in power are those who desire power. Anyone who desires power is unfit to lead. Anyone forced to lead does not desire power and wishes to be relieved of it as soon as possible.

I have no easy solutions and that's what the world seems to want. If it's a good solution, it aint easy. If it's an easy solution, it aint good.

At least you understand that there is no easy solution to the problem. I have talked with too many people who complain about the difficulties of government and think that it should be easy to fix. I try to aim for small, accomplishable, changes that fix one problem at a time. I don't see any major changes coming any time soon, so I just have to hope that it will get better eventually while doing what I can.

More importantly, how many times will you believe people's claims that the government is lying before you stop believing ANYTHING they say?

And as for evidence, how about the fact that the Taliban OPENLY ADMITTED TO DOING IT?

You are also confusing the actions of a singular entity with a completely non affiliated random sampling of people that through their own research have come to the same or similar conclusions.

By Taliban I assume you mean Al-Qaeda. They were originally denying it repeatedly, until much later admitting it. Since both claims have been made neither can be believed.

"You are also confusing the actions of a singular entity with a completely non affiliated random sampling of people that through their own research have come to the same or similar conclusions."

Um, no I'm not. I think you'll find that most, if not all, of the people questioning 9/11 will have a common factor; they're all probably liberal or a member of some political faction that is opposed to conservative government.

"By Taliban I assume you mean Al-Qaeda."

Ah, that's right, my mistake.

"They were originally denying it repeatedly, until much later admitting it. Since both claims have been made neither can be believed."

...wrong. Because the admittance was later, as the U.S.'s retaliation to 9/11 was occurring, it's more likely they would want to continue to deny it in order to play to the sympathy and doubts of others. Instead, they admit responsibility. That increases the odds of them being actually being at fault.

There really is very little argument at this point that Al-Queda is responsible. When they took out the second in command, Al-Zawiri, i think was his name or something to that extent, I believe they found evidence to cement the groups ties to it. And before you ask, no, I don't remember what evidence that was, I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the U.S.'s anti-terrorist efforts.

A political ideology is not a conglomerated organization as much as everyone would like to think that.

I don't understand what you mean in your 3rd point. Why would they admit to it AFTER the retaliation started? Wouldn't that just justify the actions of the US and remove any hope of sympathy or support?

The US has caught something like 14 #2 men of Al-Qaeda.

Thats because #3 gets promoted to be the "New #2" :P

I agree. Al Qaeda was a little nothing organization before 9-11. This put them on the international map. Honestly, who heard of them before they took the rap for planing the world trade center?

Terrorist organizations are made up, like any group, of people. Most of these people are committed to a certain ideological doctrine, but that hardly means that each one speaks for all. They are run by fanatics and try to recruit fanatics but everyone has their own take on what they stand for.

You are missing a point, here. Terrorist organizations live for making a big name for themselves. They always admit to bombings they are suspected of to raise their credibility. They wouldn't deny something unless they were opposed to it. Owning up to it later could mean that, once the U.S. retaliated on them for something, they decided that if they were being blamed for it anyway, what could it hurt?

You should focus the same curiosity on those levelling accusations of conspiracy, and evidence that is often contrived, misconstrued, and/or completely made up. Even a simple Google search turns up a page whereby you can find many debunking links to chew on:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

It's very easy for someone making a documentary to skew and twist things, and take things out of context as to completely alter their meaning. If you're prone to believe them or have an ingrained distrust of whomever they're talking about, you're likely to believe them without double-checking. It's even worse when we take sensationalism as fact. I remember Oliver Stone lamenting that his film "JFK" had to be noted as a work of fiction, which it was... he quite clearly made-up untrue things to support a government conspiracy theory, and put them in the movie. But it was his agenda to push the theory, facts be damned.

I agree. However, I'm pretty sure the full story on this will never be known. There are, in all things, three sides to every story. The story from either side and the truth. If you examine the story from all sides, it better enables you to find your own answers, rather than just easily swallowing the answers proferred by those who could benefit by lying.

"Never believe anything you hear and only half of what you read." Though nowadays, it's a bit more like less than a quarter.

I'd rather analyze the data and form an objective opinion, rather than disbelieve everything and throw darts toward the center.

Exactly my point. The only way to get an objective view of it is to listen to all the stories, disregard the impossible, then the unlikely and what you're left with is bare evidence that either makes sense or doesn't it gives you a clearer idea of where the truth would reside.

"When you eliminate the impossible, what remains, however improbably, must be the truth."

The 9/11 conspiracy theory is just that, a conspiracy theory. People just can't accept that 11 people with virtually no military experience engineered the worst attack on American soil since the War of 1812, so they invent this theory that the president or someone unknown superpowerful entity engineered it, even though their theory is even more ridiculous than what actually happened, not to mentioned its insulting to the heroes of Flight 93 and other passengers who overcame their captors and saved who knows what other American monuments or key landmarks, not mention is insulting that an democratically elected American leader would even consider destroying the buildings that held the country's economy together and risk collapse, or even more risk destroy his entire military command structure by attacking the Pentagon. The "official" story is the only one that really makes sense. Its rediculous to consider it was a facade, as rediculous as insisting that the moon landing was shot on a soundstage.

I noticed mifmaf had nothing to say to you. I think you have made the most sense out of most here to the point he couldn't rebut your comment. I'd shake your hand if I could. :)

You really think that we are that arrogant? I just figured that we have way too many people who are ignorant and as easily lead as sheep.

I never said I couldn't accept the idea that that could be done. However the thousands of convenient coincidences and downright insane evidence in some cases should be enough to raise some red flags.

I didn't responds because your statements are extremely emotional. From reading your message and the wording its clear that your mind is made up and you'd rather attack an opinion than debate it.

No offense or anything, but look who's talking.

Insane amounts of evidence? All I've seen from you is uncorroborated speculation and waving at Loose Change and it's debunked kin.

I was referring to the quality of the evidence, not the amount.

There is some pretty crazy evidence for both sides.

Found a link to an article with the Israeli art students as well as Mohammmed Atta's Quran dumping, that man carried a whole lot of Qurans.

Some of the evidence tied to Atta is downright crazy. For example, the luggage packed for a suicide mission. The numerous flight manuals. The suicide note/ will. It's an incredibly incriminating string of evidence.

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.c.....8131/27506.htm

I find the article to be of poor quality right off the bat when the quote is used regarding fuel capacity of a Boeing 707 and a Boeing 767. The smallest 767 is twenty percent heavier than the largest 707.

And I can't find a damned thing on Dr. Pastore and his credentials or background. A google search simply turns up the fact that' he's selling a book with his findings, which is a little suspect as he seems to be attempting to profit from his 'inquiries.'

This is downright painful. The first half of this article is all about brown-nosing the author and his "deductive abilities" that don't bring up any proof. Since this is an article talking about a book it is awful hard to verify his sources. The entire article doesn't even bring up proof that Mossad planted explosives or planned the attacks, just that they were on the scene. His talk about explosives still doesn't get through the difficulties that have been repeatably mentioned elsewhere in the comment to this journal. All I get out of this is that there are one or two miraculous finds and some people that were "identified" as Mossad agents at the scene.

I'll try and find a better article later. Most of the ones that reference that information are pretty "colorful".

There is probably a very good reason for that. If moderate conspiracy theorists don't even support it, it means that it probably wasn't very well done.

This doesn't have much to do with answering your question but I find this kind of funny...you bring up a painful topic and the first few remarks are "oh not this again' or "I dont want to talk about this" I just find it funny how we naturally avoid dealing with harsh subjects sometimes.

Less "harsh" and more "oh damnit not this fucking stupid thing again"

I don't know all the details but it sounds like he's just a guy that wants to know what he's getting when he commissions and has been screwed in the past....he seems a bit harsh but seems right to me

A multiple ton aricraft hit a building at 500+ mph and you don't believe it caused the building to collapse?

http://www.debunk911myths.org/

It has links to similar sites

At that scale, a "multiple ton aircraft" is still an aluminum tube. The impact shockwave will blow out windows and crushes furnishings but won't ruin the structural integrity of the building (certainly not at the lower half, which also collapsed). The core structure of the building also acts like a giant heatsink, so temperatures can't get hot enough to melt steel and cause structural failure. Steel buildings will still be left standing when caught in forest fires hundreds of feet high, and winds approaching hurricane force. Everything else is reduced to ash, and even ceramic bricks are crushed to pebbles by the debris thrown by flame winds.

No, a giant airplane is NOT enough to bring down a building like that. If anything at all, the top of the building would have slid off in a highly irregular, lop-sided fashion, over a period of days, not all at once in a few cloudy seconds. There's just too much mass. At that scale, the building is too flexible and will absorb the aircraft as if poking a gelatin with a fork.

The real problem is that there's too many armchair philosophers looking into this than engineers. For it's weight, aluminum is strong, but it can't hold a candle to steel, which is and probably always will be one of the most resilient materials in the world. It's a serious demolition mismatch.

Hell, one person I saw on TV claimed that the fires didn't bring down the building because diesel fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Great work, Einstein, but jets don't use diesel fuel. Even the debunkers can't get it right.

7.5 e^9 joules of kinetic energy striking a building is a lot of energy. It may have been a tube, but it a collision it would act similarly to a kinetic energy penetrator and punch right to the center of the building. The collision (and initial explosion) wasn't enough to make the tower collapse, but it was enough to breach the fireproofing around the steel and do significant damage. The building would have been torn down without the fire, but the jet fuel signaled it's death-knell.

The core wouldn't have acted like a heat sink, it actually acted like a blast furnace and made things worse. Jet fuel burns at 1000 degrees centigrade, and though it isn't enough to melt steel, that is enough to soften the it. Because the TWC towers were built with all of their structural support around a central shaft the jet fuel was able to soften almost all of the supporting beams at once. Nobody plans for this type of incident to occur, otherwise we would only have bunkers.

The building wouldn't have slid off because the steel didn't melt, it collapsed to the weight of the top part of the structure being put onto a increasingly weakening support structure. Buildings flex inches in the wind, not nearly enough to take the force of an aircraft. Instead of poking gelatin with a fork, it would have been like shooting it with an incendiary shell. (Actually that would be kind of cool looking)

I agree about the armchair philosophers, which is why I try to research this stuff as it is brought to my attention. I can't think of everything on my own, so I try to answer questions as they come with as few preconceptions as possible. I actually like it when I have to change my initial thoughts because of new data, it proves I'm learning something instead of becoming rigid in my thought processes.

Thank you

Wow, wasen't even talking to you. Thanks for proving you know nothing about airplains, building structure, and physics though.

Keep in mind that a skyscraper is a very delicate balancing act, much more than so than, say, a three story building. Melting is not necessary to cause failure.

Here's how it happened with all the math stripped out: Steel gets weaker as it heats up. That's why fireproofing is applied to steel bearing members. When the jets hit, they knocked the fireproofing loose and started a fire. Jet fuel is very roughly similar to diesel and kerosene. Jet fuel, in particular, won't burn if a lit match is dropped into it. But once it gets going, it really goes. Fuel vaporized on impact and the jet exhaust lit off a fireball. So you have fuel burning very hot, all over the place. Bearing members got heated to the point where they couldn't resist the stresses they were ordinarily subject to. Those parts began to bend, which then put massive abnormal stresses on nearby members. Eventually something snapped and things began to fall. This meant a lot more stress is on other members. More things snapped. More things fell. The balancing act was upset. This spread to the entire floor and an entire floor fell. That overwhelmed the floor below it, and that floor fell too and so on until the whole building collapsed.

Here's an easy demonstration of that sort of collapse: Empty an aluminum drink can. Set it on a flat surface and carefully pile a hundred or so pounds on it. It'll support that much. Tap the can lightly with a stick and the can will collapse.

Just make sure it is a long stick. :)

That's a pretty good simplified version of events. I can never do those very well unless I know exactly how much my audience knows. It should also be obvious that I suck at the KISS rule and can't keep things short to save my life.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6545313046180631815&q=911+redux&hl=en this should give you everything you need :D

I blame the Freemasons.

lol

They did this after they buried the treasure right?

No, during. They wanted to distract attention from its burial, so their star agents, the John Dillinger quintuplets, hijacked the planes.

Obviously.

Maybe they hid the treasure IN the aircraft! That would explain the quick clean-up.

Exactly. And the reason they haven't built anything on Ground Zero yet is because they want to make sure they've recovered every last bit.

I wish I had more time to elaborate on the official story. I'll just cut to the chase.
With the help of my brother, I've created a site for stuff pertaining to this.

http://www.911omissionreport.com/

There are three sections on 9/11; before, on, and after. Feel free to parooze them to your heart's content.

Lots of people died? I'd much rather spend our time speculating why it's OK for our president to get away with bombing Iraq and using 9/11 as an excuse, personally.

That is an extremely insensitve attitude to the people who died that day and thier families.

How many more attacks do we have to go through before we had a president that would have done something. Clinton sure didn't after multiple attacks under his watch. How many attacks were there? I would like to see if you can possibly remember them...

First of all I meant people died as in that is evidence that 9-11 actually freaking happened!

Now as to your second point: Let's just imagine something here for a second, alright?

Let's imagine that you were arabic and in some random country, let's say Quatar. And life was good. You went to clubs, you enjoyed american culture etc... then one day you found out some other Arabic country nearby attacked the United States. Ok... So you, being a citizen of that country might feel "oh that was some thing that happened far away" or you might feel what many did and say "oh that's awful." I know I said that that day.

But then let's say American said "Hey you people of Quatar have nuclear bombs" and then your government said "no we dont" so they sent tons of inspectors and found none. Despite this fact, America blamed you for those attacks which weren't even associated with your country, as it turns out. And somehow the American people rallied behind and supported their leader who openly lied to all the American people. You then experience the most terrible horrifying moments of your life as your whole civilization is torn asunder, your leadership removed, and suddenly you start to realize that maybe that American culture you liked so much was based on lies and deceit. You liked it but now it only reminds you of the people who bombed you. That's what happened to Iraq and all the Iraqis who were growing up liking us. They are now our enemies, they are now killing our Americans, they are continuing to be responsible for American deaths and the only people we can blame for their killing us is ourselves for attacking them and even being there. So don't you say I am insensitive to any American families because I care more about the ones who are still alive and the ones who may still die than I do about getting caught up in the emotions of the past and using them as an excuse to just hurl bombs at anybody who even closely resembles the perpetrators of this crime against us who are already fucking dead!

Where in the hell is your head? Qatar? Where did you come up with that? Use the real countries in the issue if your going to make a point!

Afganistan harbored the terrorists that pulled off 9/11 we went in and ended the ruling government that kept the terrorists safe. Iran has the nuclear capabitlity and the UN and atomic energy group which is national has gotten involved, it's not only the United States! The invasion of Iraq was based on intelligence from Russia the UN England and America that Saddam did have WMD's and chemical/bio weapons.

Get it right before you make another arguement. And stay off those stupid extreme left funded websites, If you were even remotely informed you would be able to actully contribute to this discussion. You have no facts other than you hate the war.

That's unfair of you to even mention Afghanistan because earlier you were mentioning Iraq. Afghanistan deserved retaliation. Though Iraq was certainly a terrible situation for some before we attacked the general state of the country was one which was ruled by tyranny, fear, and an iron first. Now I know that might sound harsh to our western sensibilities but there was ORDER in that strict regime. The people HAD to be controlled that way otherwise they would use their religious differences to tear each other apart in a civil war which is happening now. We aren't the world police. We don't have the right to rule Iraq, really. Some times there are situations where an ends must be met through a maintenance of order. In just 30-50 years that country, under Saddam, would have reached a state of order comparable to our own. Now we've sent them into the dark ages. We are in a war which will last hundreds of years if we are to think we can restore them to a western state and not fear the retaliation that comes with generational rearing of hate.

I don't recall and did not see in my first post to you ever mentioning Iraq. The fact is my reply concerning you I mentioned Afghanistan first.

You call the deaths of thousand of Saddams own people because they hated him order? He was a bloody dictator that killed his own people for even looking at him wrong, and his sons were worse than him.

Not discounting the fact that after he invaded Kuwait back in the early 90', since that time have broken the rules of the agreed cease fire 17 seperate times. Which in itself is grounds for war. Your facts are severly twisted into thinking Saddam's ways brought order. Ruling through fear is not the way to bring order.

You are right about one thing we don't have the right to rule Iraq, but the again your twisted thinking makes you believe that we are. We kicked out a dictator that had the blood of his own people on his hands. And you can believe all you want that Saddam's way would have led to our kind of order in that time frame all you want. The last 30 years of Saddams reign says otherwise. Do you realise he gained power though vengance? Iran doesn't rule that way, nither does a majority of Arab states. And in the 231 years of America's existance did we ever have a dictator rule the nation.

Also you say we aren't the world police, go back through this post and try to figure out why that has no place in the current discussion.

You've only found excuses for your arguements and have yet to give me anything remotely intelligent on the subject. Go do some actual reasearch on the past pretaining to the subject and then come back.

If the few can oppress the weak to create order, and be justified, then we shouldn't have gone after Hitler. Communism would also work well. So would slavery for that matter. News-flash: might does not make right!

I don't know what makes you think that Iraq would have "reached a state of order comparable to our own" when you have a dictator running the country through fear. Especially when his sons (read that successors) enjoyed torturing people for amusement. When I said that you were "forcibly taken" I meant that in every possible way. I especially find you argument for order through violence frightening because Saddam is responsible for the deaths of over 2 million of his own people. Anybody that uses chemical weapons against their own people is a monster, not a harsh ruler.


You are correct about us not being the world police, it is why we have a "Coalition of the Willing" (as I think it is called) that is larger than the UN mandated invasion of Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. To make this clear there are currently 48 countries in the current war while there were only 34 in the previous war. So don't say that this is a strictly American war where we will rule Iraq. That's just silly.

Not bad except that you forgot some details:

Saddam had chemical weapons and had even used them against civilians in the past. The US hits targets with the intent to do as little damage as possible while accomplishing the goal.

Under Saddam, and his sons, you lived in fear. If spoke out you were tortured and killed. If you caught the eyes of his sons you would be forcibly taken. Saddam was also responsible for crippling the local economy and starving people he didn't like. Since the US invasion, people have received better service than ever before. The only areas that are attacked any more are in an area representing less than 4% in Iraq's area. When was the last time you heard of an attack where the Kurds were in control?

The people that are fighting against the Coalition are predominantly people from other countries that want to return you back to that same situation you had under Saddam. They use terror tactics and have killed more civilians than soldiers. Coalition troops are not perfect, but they do get taken to task for their crimes. Eventually.


I feel bad for every American soldier that dies in Iraq. Yet, I also know that we are making a positive difference in the world by being in Iraq. People want us to go into Darfur when they have done the same things that Saddam did decades ago. We can't have it both ways.

So basically if we hadn't attacked Iraq there would be some alternate universe where everyone who is now dead would still be alive. That sounds pretty awful doesn't it, especially considering how many of those spared lives would be innocent, American, or eventually westernized in some fashion like the rest of the middle east. We have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. We even plant mine fields and torture and interrogate. How can we say that any other country cannot use those same means to bring order to their people when we do it all the time? And don't say "we have policies" because that's just an idealized piece of paper which doesn't really alter the way we act and behave as a political force. Of course the "Bush"wazi would probably have you beleiving that it's somehow justifiable that countries which are maintained through violent means are in some way less civilized. Yes some people lived in fear, but not everyone did. How many Iraqis do you know, personally, who said they lived in fear under Sadam? There were just as many people on the news saying they liked living under Sadam as there were saying they were opressed. And hey! What about Africa?! There are regimes where young children aren't afforded education but they are afforded cocaine and RPGs to launch at enemies of the state. We do nothing to attack or drop bombs on those leaders or little boys snorting coke and armed with all kinds of russian and american donated weaponry. Saddam was a saint compared to some of those military commanders in the congo, ethiopia, darfur, and practically everything sandwitched between south africa and egypt. Should we start bombing them too? If you say we should then why haven't we? The fact is this war was waged for personal reasons, not because it HAD to be done to bring freedom to an oppressed people.

The US does have vast stock piles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The difference is that we haven't used ANY against targets since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Saddam at the very least had chemical weapons and he did use them against civilian targets. His own civilians to be precise. Look it up if you don't believe me. The UN put those sanctions against Iraq for a reason.

Saying we interrogate is like saying we kill enemy combatants, it is a part of war. The torturing claims that have been made against us are some of the most pathetic claims I have ever seen. Such a non-issue. Most of the stuff they talk about is no worse than hazing. You mention minefields, but I can tell that you didn't put any research into your claim. As of 2004 (thats right, under Bush) the US became the only country in the world that uses mines that are not persistent. Meaning that a minefield lasts, at most, 30 days before self-destructing. We may still use mines, but we are the only country that uses mines that aren't dangerous after combat has ended.

As for people living in fear under Saddam, I can't list individuals but would whole ethnic groups work? The Kurds and the Shiites for example are both groups that Saddam was viciously oppressive against. The Kurds especially. Enough so that he was willing to use WMDs against them.

The rest of your statement basically asks why we aren't in other countries. My response is that we are in other countries that have either asked for or accepted our assistance. We can't stop the genocide in Darfur if we can't stop it in Iraq.

Re-read your words. Did you say "Nuclear" once? No? Then that still means Bush lied doesn't it?

I think you need to re-read his words. WMD's stick out like a sore thumb. That includes atomic weapons.

You can scream it all you want but have we found any over there? By the way the answer is no we haven't. The UN inspectors did not, we haven't, infact no one has. Bush even admited the intelligance was false.

What I am saying is we still haven't found any. Was he lieing? Tell you what Pic it or it didn't happen.

The whole basis for our invasion was him saying that Saddam had WMD. WE have yet to find any and I don't think we ever will there. They only evidence we have is this one report that could be forged. By pic it I mean show me pics that we have found WMD.

1. The whole basis of us going into Iraq was not about WMDs. Please check the joint resolution and tell me if is all about WMDs. Here is a link: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

If you still have doubts, here is a link to the senior thesis of somebody who found out what every single rational that was used by the administration to get us into Iraq. There are 27 different rationales.
http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio_execsum.pdf

2. So you want a picture of an artillery shell or sealed container with Arabic written on it as proof? There is nothing that anybody could take a picture of that you would allow you to recognize it as a WMD. What I can do is give you a link that shows what happened when Saddam used WMDs against Kurdish civilians in 1988. It's pretty nasty so don't view it if you are squeamish. http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html

Well I'll let calbeck handle this, he seems to be doing very well.

But I think I should add that just because we can't find something doesn't mean it wasn't there or still is. He had time to move them if he did.

And your pic it or it didn't happen. So by the logic I'm getting here, just because we have no pictures of the earthquake that caused the tsunami two years ago, there was no earthquake? The tsunami just came out of nowhere? Granted we have the equipment to record that stuff but I was making a point, contrary to you claim of no pic no happen.

WMDs are munitions that are designed to indiscriminately kill vast numbers of people with in a given area. WMDs can be either Nuclear, Chemical, or biological in nature. I know that we have that we have found several caches of chemical weapons. I believe we have also found caches of biological weapons, but I don't have a site to prove it. I have seen no indication that any nuclear weapons were found.

Bush, or more precisely the CIA, didn't lie about finding WMDs. They just weren't the WMDs that most of the public focuses on. Personally, biological weapons scare the crap out of me. Chemical weapons are nasty, easy to make, and cheap. Nuclear weapons are expensive, hard to make without killing yourself, and don't really concern me at all.

BTW: We haven't batted an eye at Korea yet. They tested nuclear weapons and have successfully began manufacture of them. They even announced it blatantly to the entire world.

"Will have Someday" is less worrisome than "Has RIGHT FUCKING NOW"

These are very different situations:

1. We are already in Iraq and don't have the forces to be at war with the 4th largest military in the world.

2. There is no legal grounds for anybody to invade North Korea. At the very least economic sanctions haven't been taken to the furthest extent like they were in Iraq.

3. North Korea has given ground repeatedly on the issue on nuclear weapon research. They have gone against their word repeatedly as well, basically they have better lawyers. Fear them!

4. North Korea had no reason to be in the public spotlight like Iraq. The public felt justified enough to invade Iraq, but people don't feel that same justification towards North Korea.

5. The single biggest difference though is China. We can't do much at all without the approval of China. China also has far more sway over North Korea than we do, so we let them handle most of it. We may be more powerful than China, but China is right next door. Nobody wanted to protect Iraq.

There are other reasons, but I think these are the big ones. I also think that North Korea is a bigger threat than Iraq ever was, but Iraq liked acting like a bully and got everybody's attention. I think the fact that North Korea can make nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach California (once they get them to work :) ) will make us much less aggressive in our actions against North Korea.

If I'm not mistaken of the 10 sections within the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which Congress passed 77-23 in the Senate and 296-133 in the House, only 3 of which we haven't accomplished or been proven true. The President doesn't declare war, Congress does.

Let us also not forget that the Iraq Liberation Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and 360-38 in the House. Passed under Clinton in 1998 when Congress said: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Bush definitely misled them too.

We were not being shot at. Bush invaded Iraq in hopes that is failure in afaganastan would go unnoticed.

Yet you have people in here saying Clinton didn't do anything? So which is it he did nothing or he did something can't have it both ways can you? The difference is we were attacked by Al Queda yet we didn't declare war on them we declaered it on terrorism. Was Iraq performing terror attacks against us? No they were not. WE are on their land trying to tell them what to do after our own damn goverment helped Sadam get in power. WE said "Oh they have WMD yet we have found ZERO. We continue to find none. So unless Bush can pull some out of his ass or Sadam was hideing them in Mrs. Clintons vagina I'm going to say those documents was a bunch of lies. See what America is trying to do is become the dictators of the world. Telling other countries what they can and can not do.

What Bush has done is slaughtered countless people with no hard evidence of anything.

I did not say that you said Clinton did nothing. I said the people on here.

We were not at war with Iraq. A cease-fire is a stopping of hostilitles. What I am saying is we have no right to be there. They were not attacking us on our soil we are on theirs attacking them telling them what they can and can not do.

I am not hiding my head in the sand you are the one that keeps bring up these documents as if they are gospel yet we have found no evidence of these weapons. So until we find some over there (which I doubt we will) I will say it is a bunch of made up bull shit so the president doesn't look like a total dumb ass.

That is just it though we can't threaten total oblivion because they could do the same to us. The only thing keeping our government in check is the fact that we aren't the most powerful nation in the world.

In all of the comments for this journal "Clinton" has been mentioned by 4 people: you, me, Calbeck, and montecarlo87. Only montecarlo87 has said anything about what Clinton didn't do, so I don't think you can make a claim about there being a lot of anti-Clinton sentiments.

We have found plenty of evidence of chemical weapons stockpiles. The AP even reported that we found 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium back in June of 2004. We have recovered audio tapes where Saddam is discussing with his lieutenants how to hide their ongoing nuclear enrichment program from UN inspectors. We found chemical labs with over 1,500 gallons of chemical and precursor agents in August of 2005. In May of 2004 several old artillery shells containing sarin and mustard were found. Shells containing cyclosarin were being sold for $5,000 before Polish troops found them in June of 2004. I can go on if you want, but I think I made my point. Saddam had WMDs, just not many and no nukes. He had on going programs to make more and he had a demonstrated capacity to use them against civilians. Here is a small declassified report you should look at: http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/DNILetter.pdf

Even if no WMDs had been found, why does everybody keeping blaming Bush? It was an intelligence failure so bad that the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, French intelligence, British intelligence, German intelligence, and Israeli intelligence all openly believed that Iraq had WMDs before September of 2002. The only people that openly rejected this claim were Russian President Vladimir Putin and former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter.

On another note, if the US isn't the most powerful country in the world, who is? Just curious.

The events of Sept. 11, 2001 never actually mattered anyway. What does matter is the fact that since 1934 the United States Federal Government and its agents have been systematically stripping the rights of the people away. If you're going to bitch about the government, bitch about the right part, please.

you say that as if they are in no way related.

They are, but there's an inherent problem here.

It's too late to work this out from inside the system, and too early to start shooting the people responsible.

Thats why the second amendment is the best one. It's there to protect the others when the first amendment fails.

No, the amendments are merely putting into words the places where Those In Power Shall Not Tread, Lest We Shoot Them And Put Different People In Power. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it enumerates them.

The rights that are being taken away are usually used to chip around those listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. If I can take 'X' away from you I have justification to take 'Y' from you as well. If I'm not mistaken the 9th amendment is all about protecting those rights not listed from the expansion of the federal government. I could be wrong though.

10th.

In my opinion, it seems clear that SOMEone put together the attack. Whether it was Al-Quida or not...remember, Osama Bin Laden never ACTUALLY claimed or accepted responsibility; his video where he said he was leading a Jihad against the United States just HAPPENED to come out right after (or right before, I can't remember which). Far as I'm concerned, it's too big of an assumption that he or his folks had anything to do with it. Plus, and don't ask me how this works, but Dubya used 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. First he hit Afganistan, of course, but we were in and out of there in minutes compared to Iraq. Then there's the whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing: NONE WERE EVER FOUND, yet it was the whole reason the White House gave for invading; but they denied this when we couldn't find any. I don't think it's extreme to say the United States isn't exactly the good guys here. Not the people, I mean; not the civilians, or even some of the soldiers and government officials. But the people in charge, and those supporting their decisions, strike me as being the aggressors. By (unwritten) definition, the aggressors in a war are usually the villains. Boy, did I ever prattle on! -.=.-;

The US was in Afghanistan doing military operations before 9-11.

Yeah, but they stepped it up. I think. JEEZE, I need to read the newspaper more often.

They were also performing wargames in the region at the time.

Speaking of covert operations, it appears that the US and British have been doing them in Iran for quite a while now.

Thats pretty normal for US special forces in a time of hostilities. We were also in Iraq before the first Persian Gulf War. They send over terrorists and we send over special forces, both sides know it happens and both sides know that there isn't much they can do about it at the moment.

If I'm not mistaken US forces have found several kilos of saran, mustard gas and other chemical weapons as well. I know that when the public says "WMD" they really mean "nuclear weapon" but how many chemical weapons do we need to find before the war is "justified" in the eyes of the public?

I actually have a bet with some people that says even if we do find a huge weapons stash, there will be a LOT of noise about how we planted evidence to justify the war.

personally I think something was fishy about 9/11 if you watch it, though one tower got hit so much earlier they both drop down within 5 seconds of each other, that part was never explained to me and its what has made me think twice about what happened that day

One collapsed THIRTY MINUTES after the other, not five seconds.

ok sorry got the time facts wrong but still there are other things that arnt explained, like the fake osama binladen videos, if you check the facts closely you will see that some of the later ones are fakes, if you want proof, just look at the tapes closely, youll find that though doing this for his religion he seems to be wearing a ring when he isnt meant to because of his religion, also for some reason the videos are fuzzed out, not alot just enough to make the facial features harder to see

Bin laden likely just leveraged religion to support his motives, just like the politicians in the US. He doesn't necessarily believe it.

yes but still it does seem strange that one using a religion to his advantage wouldnt adhere to at least the image of following it, anyway I dont really want to get into this conversation too much, we all agree that whatever happened it was a painful time for too many people and we should put it behind us

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co.....-in-loose.html

If that Osama video was faked, then previous Osama videos were faked, because he's wearing a gold colored ring in them. He's forbidden from wearing gold, not from anything that appears to be gold. My calss ring LOOKS LIKE gold, but it isn't.

Most 9/11 nutjobs do focus on the mechanics of the event as well as the minutae and odd coincidences. So too do the people that denounce them.

However the people that are interested in the bigger picture will simply look at money involved. It's much harder to hide suspicious financial transactions apparently than airplane wreckage.

I posted a previous journal with "The Ring of Power". Part one goes over the financial transactions that surrounded the event.

You should look into the direct transactions relating to the purchase and sale of the WTC as well as the insurance policies.

Considerably more money was involved than just the 'put' options.

You should then also check how much of that he actually paid. It was to be done in installments and over a very long time.

The owner wanted it insured for 1.5B, his underwriters wanted it insured for 6B, it was actually insured for 3.5B, which if I recall isn't enough to rebuild.

Considering the financial status of boeing, american airlines, and united it isn't surprising that people were betting on the stock dropping. The surprising thing is that there is several million dollars that have not been collected by various companies who gambled on airlines doing poorly. The amount of money that was made was still pennies compared to what could have been made if OBL had put his money in oil stocks. Non-issue.

1: Let this subject die already D:

2: The evidence is what has been documented. You're not going to get "physical evidence" since that's what you seem to be after. Sure, you can't trust the government for shit, but you're worse of questioning such a horrible tragedy trying to figure out whether it was the government that planned it, or an actual attack. Or whether the passengers were just innocent, or working with the goverment.

3: If you say you think the trade center was bombed to make it collapse, I'm sorry and no offence, but I'm going to need to borrow a brick.

I'd say more (like something that made more sense, really >.>; ) , but this laptop sucks, and I'm tired.

Oh, also, in the paraphrased words Penn Jillette: Isn't already ENOUGH of a conspiracy? Religious nuts conspired to take down several symbols of this nations greatness, and demoralize it peoples.

Really, why would our government want to demoralize this nation by killing thousands of innocent people?

This subject really bugs me. Consiracy nuts make me want to smack someone with a brick. :|

Don't waste a perfectly good brick. It will probably just bounce anyways. Use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch for guaranteed results. Tiny bits. :)

2: I don't see how I'm worse. I have not made my full assumptions clear at any point. I've merely indicated that opportunity and capacity existed at every stage,

3: Whether it was bombed or not is irrelevant. Everything just seems to devolve into a discussion about minutae.

That's because that's what the whole thing is made up of. You can't GET a simple, two sentance explanation for the whole damned thing. You have to put things into per5spective and go along slowly point by point over the whole thing to fully understand it.

9/11 in two sentences. I take this as a challenge. :)

19 terrorists, using a plan created by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and funded by Osama bin Laden, hijacked four different commercial aircraft with the intention of crashing them into the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon, and an unknown target presumed to be in Washington DC.

3 of those aircraft hit their targets, causing the World Trade Towers to collapse after a short period of time and destroying a section of the Pentagon, while the forth plane was brought down due to the brave actions of its passengers; thus bringing the total death toll of the event to 2997 people and 19 terrorists.

They maybe run-on sentences, but I think they work.

Oh Lordy Lordy....... *sigh* I can name many, many, many conspiracy theories. the most prominent being that of bushes involvement and his 'Scull and bones' cult buddies. As mentioned above their IS actually a theory relating into the freemasons But enough of that. Heres my little bit about this. They saw we were weak, our administration would crumble if such an attack would happen, they posibly could have never suspected that we would have supported that tard' after the attacks. They might have assumed that we would have had some crazy government rukus thus paving the way for more attacks. but thats my bit about it all...
I could type more but im feelin lazy at the moment :P

every time I start to think you're relatively normal you do that paranoid "all common knowledge is a lie" thing again! Pseudoskepticism bad!!

(haha sorry for sounding like I'm getting pissed off, I'm not, just exaggerating cause sometimes you present wacky off the wall shit, I swear)

I like to think that it's a good thing that I'm not normal. I'm not some paranoid weirdo with newspaper clippings all over my walls. I'm just very good at connecting information that I acquire. Of course there may be incorrect connections and I ask these kinds of questions to get information to clear them up.

I sometimes get upset when I look at how compartmentalized most people's though processes are.

if you're a star trek fan you should see the episode of voyager where seven of nine interfaces herself to the ship's database, she starts coming up with all these conspiracy theories and stuff due to all sorts of obscure connections and stuff.

The important part is a healthy balance of being able to do a reality check and place stuff where it likely is to go, and balance that with skepticism and seeing connections where there could be some and exploring those avenues. But always keep in mind the outcome with the most likelihood -- that's what separates reasonable musers of alternative theories, and conspiracy nuts

I am a star trek fan and I have seen that episode.

A paranoid schizophrenic is someone that suspects that they are being monitored or spied on and they will tend to form connections that reaffirm it. However that comes from their assumption that that is the case.

I'm familiar with a lot of conspiracy theories: aliens, lizard men, illuminati and all that junk. However I'm interested in an enormous variety of subjects and when the same theories start to appear, owing no connection to the other fields of study then I begin to suspect something.

A recent and considerable example of that was uncovered by the Nutritionists council in the US. They have begun lobbying against new trade rules called "Codex Alimentarius". There are petitions all over the world to prevent its enforcement. The same names as those conspiracy theorists flaunt started appearing. Even though the people doing the research were not conspiracy theorists.

There are literally hundreds of conspiracies connected via the names that are completely independently researched.

Only in DC does something like that not imply a connection.

A political agenda always feels tacked on in any conspiracy theory.

The example of WMDs in Iraq presents an interesting idea. If they didn't exist that would remove the excuse for invasion, but if they do exist how does that justify the invasion anyway?

Ugh, politics.

But anyway, whether Iraq lied or not, how does that justify the US invasion? Nobody else wanted to invade them and by what authority does the US claim to be permitted to do that?

Honestly war just can't be justified unless you are defending yourself or your allies from an agressor. The potential for agression is also not a justification.

All of the points that Calbeck made are written in the resolution that authorized use of military force against Iraq. This resolution was passed in the House by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate by a vote of 77-23. The resolution is a matter of public record and can be found here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi.....=f:publ243.107

Kinda agree: Asking that question isn't that important.

However, having a full and frank Public Enquiry into What exactly happened in the build up to the Iraqi Invasion is a good idea:

With Hindsight, I think most people can see things haven't turned out as well as they could have, and that's OK - We don't need to string anyone up, or find a fall guy - we're dealing with a complex situation, which could have gone any one of several dozen ways. I'd be very surprised if any of the big players weren't doing what they genuinly thought was best at the time.

However, knowing what happened will kill a lot of conspiracy theories, clear the air, and - you never know - we might learn a lesson or two, as well.

"where are the WMD's" is a rhetorical question, could be many reasons for asking it. We KNEW saddam had WMD's because we practically gave them to him during the Reagan years. Whether or not he held onto them, developed more, or destroyed them right before the UN inspectors came back is another matter.

(to add to that I should say that the fact of the matter is that we never found any and thus the original justification for going to war will never be able to hold. That's also why our administration came up with ex-post facto justifications for having done it)

>.>
<.<

*ominously exits the shadows*
The Absence of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence
*returns to the shadows*

I agree with the principle, but if you take that to extremes then we have no reason to believe that any of the conspiracies are correct either. I can say that it was an bad series of drunk pilots, electrical faults, and human stupidity, but I have no evidence to prove it. Yet based an extreme interpretation of that phrase, it is just as valid as the actual events and every other conspiracy theory.

Oh what the hell, here's some more stuff.

http://www.WantToKnow.info/070618pr.....orsquestion911

Haven't had the chance to read through it all just yet. Some folks listed I agree with, others I don't. My feelings, personally? The conspiracy issue's real, but it's not about our government orchestrating 9/11 a la the Reichstag Fire. Attempting to conceal the profound incompetence that permitted 9/11 to happen from the people they supposedly represent, and failing to bring anyone to account...that's what feeds the conspiracy theories.

The Bush Administration is easily the most closed Administration since Nixon's. Bush's inner circle believes in the idea of the Unitary Executive; they have gotten people on the Supreme Court who support this position. At least two of his inner circle actually *came* from the Nixon Administration (Cheney and Rumsfeld) and apparently the lesson learned from Nixon's crimes was "keep secret as much as you can, keep the general populace afraid and give 'em something big to keep 'em distracted". To whit:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Read "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

Check out some of the names affiliated with PNAC. Remember who beat the war drums for invading Iraq? You'll find 'em listed as authors.

I don't know enough about physics to challenge anything about the collapse of the towers. I do know they were designed to withstand the impact of a 707; one of the principle architects for the complex said so in an interview after 9/11. To me it's a moot point. I'm more interested in why it took our goverment officials so long to respond to the emergency. I'd like to know why Bush was so resistant to the idea of an investigation into the worst attack on American soil since the War of 1812. I'd like to know why he only caved after enormous public outcry, and then only accepting a panel with little actual authority. Why has it taken so long for the second phase of the investigation to get rolling? Why was 9/11 tied to Saddam Hussien when the CIA, MI5 and all the other intelligence agencies at the time said there was no connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq? Why did Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld apply such pressure to the CIA to come up with connections, and finally set up their OWN intelligence agency SEPARATE from the CIA in order to get the information they wanted?

I hope one of these days we'll get some answers. The present folks in power haven't been all that forthcoming.

I don't have a lot of time right now to comment but I have a question for you.

Why do some people say that this was the worst attack on American soil since the War of 1812? Hawaii was an American territory back in 1898, the Philippines were an American Colony after 1935, and both were attacked during WW2. I'm curious why these seem to be overlooked.

Sorry: worst attack on the continental US since 1812. That clearer? Pearl Harbor's also a pertinent example of a terrible event. I can't say it's been "overlooked" in the general dialog. Seems to have been mentioned an awful lot in the last six years.

In the end, I don't think What Catastrophe Best Matches 9/11 in American History is a particularly useful game to play.

Gotcha. This wasn't the first time I had heard someone make this comment, but it was the first opportunity I had to comment on it. I agree that it is irrelevant to the situation, but I think it is important to put things in the correct context.

Absolutely. We forget our own history at our peril.

It's an interesting thing, too, bringing up the Philippines. Y'got some good parallels between the Spanish-American war and the present debacle in Iraq. W.R. Hearst played the role of Rupert Murdoch back then. We had a contrivance for delcaring war, the loss of the Maine; and the colonized started fighting us the moment it became obvious we weren't gonna liberate 'em. Kinda sad.

Actually, my favorite comparison to modern America is ancient Rome. We may be one of the greatest countries in the known world, but the corruption is seething right below the surface.

There are some very good comparisons there, but there are also some important dissimilarities. Not much point in going over them now, but it is one of the closer events in history to what is going on now.

Hey, Rome works for me too. The latter half of the Empire's history has some similarities we'd do well to note.

At the same time, I'm hopeful. We're *still* a young country. The path we're on isn't set in stone. We can choose to shift things around.

I'm hopeful. At the same time I wish people'd read more. (That goes for me, too.)

We can always have hope, but hope alone is not enough to make change. We have many difficult choices yet to make that can improve our situation.

As far as reading and books are concerned:

The one way of tolerating existence is to lose oneself in literature as in a perpetual orgy.
Gustave Flaubert

When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes.
Desiderius Erasmus

I think this makes my position clear. :)

Hope's the thing that powers good action. It's better than the choices further down the line: desperation and fanaticism. As my ex was fond of saying: replace fear with action.

Good quotes!

If the collapse of the I 80 is any indication then the burning jet fuel, assuming it burns hotter than gasoline, should have been enough to begin the collapse.

The symmetry is the most suspect about it.

*nods* Like I said, I don't feel adequately armed to debate the physics of the issue.

I do feel there are plenty of facts (supported by sworn testimony from people like Richard Clarke, Paul O'Niell, Scott Ritter, and on and on) well worth investigating and with very little ambiguous wiggle room in 'em.

Again, if you don't have stuff to hide, you tend to be a bit more open about your actions.

Nofbar already went over this once and the link to the demolitions website I put up earlier went over it in their second point. The WTC buildings behaved like almost every other skyscraper that has ever collapsed by following the path of least resistance while being "pulled" by the force of gravity. You might be able to find pictures of buildings that tipped over, but none of those buildings would have had all of their structural supports damaged.

Regardless of this, heavy debris was scattered over several blocks around the towers. That's why so many of the buildings had to get torn down afterwards. The 50 story top of the North Tower is what impacted the American Express Building a block away.

Here are some photos, including both satellite and aerial, that show damage done to other buildings as well as the clean-up process. Link: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/groundzero.html

I've never seen a skyscraper demolished starting from the top in controlled demolition. As such it's impossible to accurately determine what would happen in such a situation.

I'm going to do a bit of checking on the mysterious plumes. Since they appear on perpendicular sides simultaneously it should be easy to tell where the center of each lies.

You will never find a building that is taken from the top down, because that is the most difficult way to do it. It can be done, but it would take far more explosives than going from the bottom up. However, that doesn't mean that they don't have a very god understanding about what would happen, they had to figure out the easy way somehow. The mechanics don't change that much, just how much energy is needed to preform the specific task.

The plumes are caused by air pressure, I haven't seen any experts debate this. If you notice in the films the plumes billow outwards at an increasing speed. Explosives compression happen all at once and cause a single violent expansion. This was explained in the link I posted earlier. If explosives were used you would have had to see these plumes on every floor, in the same positions, at the same rate of advance. If it wasn't done in the same way, the tower would have fallen in jerks.

but it did fall smoothly, which it shouldnt have done, i doubt the planes would have gone far enough inside to injur the central support collum which all the floors are built around, why do we see none of this structure during the collapse? it should have at least poked out the top as the outter supports failed

I don't know why you think it shouldn't have fallen smoothly. It had every reason to do so and I have yet to see anyone, even conspiracy theory websites, bring this up as a relevant piece of data. Please try to find pictures/movies of a building that isn't falling smoothly. I'd like to see if you can come up with anything.

Why do you doubt that the aircraft went that far? You should know that a 767 is almost as long as the building is wide. I made a comment earlier talking about the kinetic energy of the crash itself that you should look at. It would be very easy to get to the center support columns because there were no other support columns. The design of the WTC towers were to have a load-bearing core that would leave more floor space in the rest of the building. The only "outer supports" were the walls holding up the exterior facade. If it had been built in a more traditional manner, the buildings probably would not have fallen. Recall that the WTC towers were one of the lightest high rises in the world.

You can't see the support columns because 13% or 21% of the building's height collapsed at one time. After the collapse you could see the bottom support structure above the rest of the debris. This makes sense as they were strongest there and had had the least proportional force put on them. It's all about engineering.

Now this is a journal that will get filled >> i recentl;y got really intereted in the whole twin towers sitation through a friend, heard the stories about wierd transactions etc but the information is there against them,


most significant fact about the twin towers is simple mass, even if an airoplane did collide it wouldnt have been heavy or big enough to leave more then a big dent, they tried to explain it as the fires from the airplanes caused the steel to warp and fail, steel melts at like... 3500 something degress, fires like those of airplane fuel would only reach around 1800 degress, in otherwords the planes couldnt reasonably have brought down the towers by themselves, damaged yes, demolished... not really >>

another thing is the pentagon o.o were talking something like over a million cameras and what?.... not one single video? except a single video taken by a civilian homecam, plus.... damage radius, wreckage, oh.. a passengerairline would have either left a huge groove as it practtically slid into the building or it would have kinda bounced through the roof and gone much futher then the impact zone.

Would you please state where you are getting these assumptions from, when experts agree on what happened. You are ignoring basic physics, metallurgy, and engineering principles in this statement. At least read the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center) on the collapse if you aren't willing to read the NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC%20Response%20Presentation%2011122002%20text.pdf) itself.

I don't know all that much about the Pentagon attack because I have never bothered to study it. I do know that at least one camera (at the parking garage I believe) caught the final impact on tape. I have no reason to believe that it was faked considering the evidence from other events of 9/11.

The main questions regarding the pentagon attack are regarding the fact that many of the reported recordings and tapes were siezed by the authorities and that the plane wreckage was removed very discreetly without exposing it to cameras.

Recordings and tapes are routinely seized by authorities in crashes. This is how crash investigators get the information. The only difference in this circumstance is that it took a Freedom of Information Act request to get the films back. After looking at the videos online I see no evidence that goes against what happened. Frankly, the poor quality of the videos makes it difficult to identify much of anything.

When I look the photos and eyewitness accounts I found no evidence that doesn't support flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. The image that shows a large piece of gnarled aluminum for instance. Based on the size and shape of that piece (not to mention the color scheme) I don't that it would be possible for it to have come from a missile, however that is conjecture on my part. The picture that shows where a collapsing light-pole hit a taxi tells me that something wide enough to hit several light-poles had crashed. Hundreds of eyewitnesses saw logos, wings, tails, and engines at close range. The only missiles in the world that wings are subsonic cruise missiles with wingspans of less than 3 meters. They obviously don't have engines on those wings.

I can go on, but I see more than enough evidence to believe that flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon. The sheer number of witnesses reporting the same thing make it VERY unlikely that it was some type of missile.

as i said "not one single video? except a single video taken by a civilian homecam" according to site i looked at apparently it's a guardhouse cam (my appologies) and that doesnt really look like an airplane crash if you ask me, the building would have come off worse then the plane http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/pentagon-aerial.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/911pentagon.html&h=588&w=587&sz=197&hl=en&start=17&um=1&tbnid=V8la_ygRYwxFKM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpentagon%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26sa%3DN i like this image, it's pretty obvious.

i have to go to work i'll readup on the basic twin towers fact when i get home :)