9/11 - 102 Minutes which changed America

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Something has been on my mind for many years now. This may sound stupid, it may have even been mentioned before. 9/11 =911 the U.S. emergency telephone number.

 

 

Tomorrow is 9/9/9.

 

I would not be totally surprised for there to be an attack on Brits tomorrow.

 

I hope my concerns are totally misplaced.

[Baj]

Good book - but his 'Report from Engine Co 82' is better. He'd retired before 9/11, by the way, and was then making his living as a despicable journalist.

 

His description of the bodies of the 'jumpers' hitting the ground is truly horrifying.

 

not a fan of his then?

[Verbal]

not a fan of his then?

 

Oh dear. For the third time of asking, you looked at that BBC link yet?

Edited 8 September, 2009 by Verbal

[Sheaf Saint]

So did you read the BBC article in that link? Care to revise your opinion?

 

I read it Verbal. All it states is that 'The FBI is confident it has positively identified the 19 hijackers'. But I have also read a lot on the subject of 9/11 and it is widely known that when the FBI realised that there was too much evidence available that some of the people on their original list were still alive, they simply replaced those people with other names. This was after that BBC article was published. Look it up for yourself.

 

I have no doubt that this debate is essentially driven by some deeply paranoid people, so 'loonies' is a pretty good term I think.

 

That may be the case for some, but you cannot apply that logic to everybody who believes we have not been told the whole truth about it. I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist. when I become aware of these kinds of claims, I like to look at all the evidence I can find and make up my own mind. For instance, when I first heard about the faked moon landings theory a few years ago, I decided to do some research on it, and I came to the conclusion that it was a load of ******** and all the evidence points to the fact that the moon landings were real.

 

I have done a lot of reading on the subject of 9/11, and the only thing I can say with 100% certainty is that the final report by the 9/11 commission, along with the NIST report into the collapse of the twin towers and their subsequent report on the collapse of WTC7 (which to my mind is one of the most suspicious aspects of the whole saga), are nothing but works of fiction which were intended to cover up the truth rather than expose it. You only have to do a little bit of research into Philip Zelikow - the chairman of the 9/11 commission - to see that his appointment guaranteed that it would not be a fair and independent investigation.

 

You may have had first hand experience of some extremist, paranoid people. But to label everybody who questions the evidence and makes up their own mind, rather than those who blindly accept what they are spoon-fed by people with an agenda of their own (IMO it is these people that should be ridiculed, not the so-called 'conspiracy theorists') as 'loonies' is just totally absurd.

 

There is no 'smoking gun' which proves it was a govt cover up. There probably never will be one. But you only have to

whether or not he had advance knowledge of the attacks to know that there is something seriously wrong with his tone and his body language.

 

I have read all of the claims of the 'truthers' and I have read all of the responses of those who wish to discredit the 'truthers'. The way I see it is this - every single aspect of the truthers' case could be explained away as circumstantial or co-incidence on their own. But when you add them all together, and there are dozens, if not hundreds of major flaws and discrepancies in the official story, the chances of co-incidence become infinitessimaly small.

 

Were the WTC towers brought down with demolition?

I really don't know. The NIST report seems to have conveniently ignored anything that might have remotely indicated this as being a possible cause for the collapse. Their 'investigation' seems to have started out on the premise that they already knew what caused it.

Did a Boeing 757 crash into the Pentagon?

I have to say that from everything I have seen and read, the evidence against seems to far outweigh the evidence for in this case.

Did flight 93 crash in Shanksville?

No, almost certainly not. The aftermath shows no aircraft wreckage whatsoever and the local coroner has been quoted as saying that he only stayed on the scene for 10 minutes before leaving again, because there were no bodies to recover.

Has there been a cover up by the Bush administration?

Absolutely without question, yes.

Edited 8 September, 2009 by Sheaf Saint

[OLYMPIC]

IIRC it was about 5pm over here, right?

 

New York is 5 hours behind us.

[Baj]

Oh dear. For the third time of asking, you looked at that BBC link yet?

Of course, they retracted the story, means none of it is a conspiracy then huh?

[Verbal]

Sorry, Bexy, I'll answer your points when I get a moment, but thanks for making me laugh with the GWB comment. The idea that George W Bush's look of discomfort reveals anything other than his own dim wattage is a bit of a stretch. He'd look uncomfortable if you asked him to confirm his name.

[Verbal]

Of course, they retracted the story, means none of it is a conspiracy then huh?

 

Sorry? Would you mind spelling it out for me what it is you actually believe?

 

Are you saying that the towers were brought down by Goerge W and D*ck Cheney, and the might of the American industrial-military complex?

 

And that the thousands of people who must have been involved in this conspiracy have somehow managed to keep spectacularly schtum about the whole thing?

[Baj]

Sorry? Would you mind spelling it out for me what it is you actually believe?

 

Are you saying that the towers were brought down by Goerge W and D*ck Cheney, and the might of the American industrial-military complex?

 

And that the thousands of people who must have been involved in this conspiracy have somehow managed to keep spectacularly schtum about the whole thing?

 

There are dozens of questions over 9/11, the fact that the BBC retracted an article does not discount on merit all the other unanswered questions. You're a smart man, you knew what I was saying.

[Verbal]

There are dozens of questions over 9/11, the fact that the BBC retracted an article does not discount on merit all the other unanswered questions. You're a smart man, you knew what I was saying.

 

No, it's really hard to tell. You lobbed the BBC link at me as evidence that there was a lack of firm belief in and about the FBI that they'd identified all 19 of the hijackers. But you failed to read the BBC's own retraction of the story.

 

I'm not pointing fingers - it's something that's happened repeatedly with this story. Some reporter makes an on-the-spot remark or report that subsequently turns out to be wrong. But the indelible trail of the internet renders the error into hard fact, and it becomes grist to the mill of the conspiracy nuts.

 

So my question is - how far down the road do you go with this stuff? I'm really curious.

[saintwarwick]

'monday night footbal saved my life'

 

Well I was at crib and forgot to record it. Would of been interesting to watch. Someone posted a link on the programme but that is not working, never mind.

[saintwarwick]

Was exactly what I was going to say.

 

If the like of 9/11 can be planned and executed in America - it can happen anywhere in the world. That is why our guys are currently in Afghanistan.

 

It is interesting to note as well that there are lots of countries Armed Forces currently serving over there (Germany, Denmark and the like) that (for political reasons) wouldn't normally serve in these hot spots. They are there now though - because they too understand the very real threat of another 9/11.

 

43 countries are currently serving in Afghanistan including most european countries and all the major players in world politics.

[sperm_john]

Well I was at crib and forgot to record it. Would of been interesting to watch. Someone posted a link on the programme but that is not working, never mind.

 

No 'monday night football saved my life' is a quote from the documentary, a guy is looking at the world trade centre and on the phone to his mum saying how he over slept because he stayed up late watching monday night football so was late for work and consequently not in the building ...quite a crazy moment!

[aintforever]

Were the WTC towers brought down with demolition?

I really don't know. The NIST report seems to have conveniently ignored anything that might have remotely indicated this as being a possible cause for the collapse. Their 'investigation' seems to have started out on the premise that they already knew what caused it.

Did a Boeing 757 crash into the Pentagon?

I have to say that from everything I have seen and read, the evidence against seems to far outweigh the evidence for in this case.

Did flight 93 crash in Shanksville?

No, almost certainly not. The aftermath shows no aircraft wreckage whatsoever and the local coroner has been quoted as saying that he only stayed on the scene for 10 minutes before leaving again, because there were no bodies to recover.

Has there been a cover up by the Bush administration?

Absolutely without question, yes.

 

As in all conspiracy theorists you look at snippets of information and ignore all logic.

 

If Bush wanted to blow up the Twin Towers then they simply would have staged another bombing, there is no logical reason to involve a elaborate plan involving robot pilots, demolition squads and shed loads of agents apparently willing to commit mass murder. They would simply sneak a big bomb up a tower then frame a few Afgans before shooting them.

 

The Pentagon - if it wasn't a Airliner, what the hell was it and how did they expect to shoot missiles or whatever at the Pentagon in broad daylight and guarantee no one saw/videod/photographed it.

 

The crash in Shanksville - it would obviously be different to other plan crashes as it was no boubt purposely nose dived into a field at full speed. There was possibly a motive for a cover up here, if the plane was shot down (maybe wrongly), but again I don't see where this would fit into some big conspiracy.

 

I think the most likely explanation is that Bush new Bin Laden was planning something but screwed up so is cover his tracks. Or possibly he let it happen thinking Bin Laden would blow up a plane or something and the US could take the moral high ground (show the US public how bad Muslim extremists really are) and it back-fired big time.

 

Any idea that the US government carried out the attacks if way too unbelievable.

[Kadeem Hardison]

Will the BBC do?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

 

How's the ghost hunting going?

[Robsk II]

tee hee

[Thedelldays]

Any idea that the US government carried out the attacks if way too unbelievable.

what makes me laugh is when people say.."but look how the towers fell, they did not fall like an airliner just hit them...the computer simulations say so"...

 

umm, how many airliners drive straight into sky scrapers to compare against...

 

lol

[aintforever]

what makes me laugh is when people say.."but look how the towers fell, they did not fall like an airliner just hit them...the computer simulations say so"...

 

umm, how many airliners drive straight into sky scrapers to compare against...

 

lol

 

And how the hell do you put enough explosives in place to bring down the towers but make sure they don't go off when you plough an airliner into it!

 

Then carry out a carefull demolition an hour later when the towers are a burning mess, all without making a large bang. And to make it even more complex the towers must fail just at the point where the planes crashed in!

[Rattlehead]

43 countries are currently serving in Afghanistan including most european countries and all the major players in world politics.

 

Russia?

China?

[Sheaf Saint]

As in all conspiracy theorists you look at snippets of information and ignore all logic.

 

I resent that remark thank you. Read back through all of my previous post and you will see that I clearly posted that I have looked at a lot of information on both sides of the argument, and that I am of the mind that there has been a massive cover up, because it seems to me to be the only explanation for the gaping holes in the official story. But hey, just label me a conspiracy theorist and discredit anything I have said if it makes you feel better.

 

If Bush wanted to blow up the Twin Towers then they simply would have staged another bombing, there is no logical reason to involve a elaborate plan involving robot pilots, demolition squads and shed loads of agents apparently willing to commit mass murder. They would simply sneak a big bomb up a tower then frame a few Afgans before shooting them.

 

Like I said. I don't know. I have read pages and pages of testimonies from NY firefighters and police officers who claim that they witnessed explosions that were totally consistent with demolition 'rings' around the towers just before they collapsed. I have read and watched interviews with survivors who claim they witnessed a massive explosion in the basement of the South tower before the first plane even hit but who's testimony was rejected by the 9/11 commission. Why? There were traces of thermite found in the debris. Why? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the second plane that hit wasn't even a United Airlines 757, but a military plane. Plenty of people have testified to this and the

seems to back it up. Again, this was dismissed. Why?

 

These are important questions that were completely ignored by the 9/11 commission. How can they claim to have carried out a complete and proper investigation when they have not even taken into account some extremely important evidence?

 

You claim that I am ignoring all logic, but by dismissing these questions, you are turning your back on logic yourself.

 

The Pentagon - if it wasn't a Airliner, what the hell was it and how did they expect to shoot missiles or whatever at the Pentagon in broad daylight and guarantee no one saw/videod/photographed it.

 

On the flipside of that, how come nobody photographed/filmed a 757 hitting the Pentagon. There are something like 80 CCTV cameras in various buildings all around the pentagon, and in the days following 9/11 they were seized by the FBI and never released. If just one of those tapes shows flight 77 hitting the pentagon, then why have they not released it and put the conspiracy theory to bed once and for all? Why have they not released pictures of the wreckage with identification proving that it was flight 77? Why was there no wreckage on the lawn? Why is it that plenty of people have testified that what they saw hitting the pentagon was not a 757? How could an inexperienced pilot who, according to his instructor, could barely handle a single-engined Cessna fly straight over the pentagon and then execute an extremely complex 330 degree downward spiral before levelling off at just a few feet above ground level at 500mph and hit the ground floor of the pentagon, in a section that just happened to be empty for renovation anyway, without hitting the ground first? Why would they even do this when it would have been so much easier to just point the plane in a straight line from the direction they came in from?

 

Once again, these are very serious points which need addressing but have been ignored by the 9/11 commission. Why?

 

The crash in Shanksville - it would obviously be different to other plan crashes as it was no boubt purposely nose dived into a field at full speed. There was possibly a motive for a cover up here, if the plane was shot down (maybe wrongly), but again I don't see where this would fit into some big conspiracy.

 

Has no other plane ever crashed nose-first then? Again, where is the wreckage? why has the public never been allowed to see pictures of the recovered debris? Why has the data from the flight recorder never been released? How is it that passengers on flight 93 apparently had lengthy conversations with their families on mobile phones when, by the FBI's own admission, mobile phone technology of the time would have made this virtually impossible?

 

I think the most likely explanation is that Bush new Bin Laden was planning something but screwed up so is cover his tracks. Or possibly he let it happen thinking Bin Laden would blow up a plane or something and the US could take the moral high ground (show the US public how bad Muslim extremists really are) and it back-fired big time.

 

Any idea that the US government carried out the attacks if way too unbelievable.

 

I actually agree with you to a point. I don't believe that they planned it all themselves because Bush and his cronies simply do not have the intellect to cover it up properly without leaving a smoking gun. It is far more likely that they had advanced knowledge of the plans and allowed them to happen, and maybe even added some additional security to make sure it was successful in order to gain public support for their war plans in the middle east. It wouldn't be the first time a US govt has done something like that.

 

But there are still far too many other aspects that just don't make any sense at all, like the finding of one of the hijackers' passports in the WTC debris; the catastrophic failure of the FAA/NEADS security protocols which should have seen flights 11 and 175 intercepted in plenty of time to stop them from reaching their targets; the changing of the names on the list of hijackers by the FBI; the claim by Donald Rumsfeld that he was unaware that a plane was heading towards the Pentagon which has proven to be a lie; the testimony that a USAF E-4B was seen flying over New York on the morning of 9/11; and much, much more.

 

I guess we'll never get the answers.

[Verbal]

Bexy: any chance of guessing a motive?

 

The problem with all this, if you sink too deeply into it, is that you have to try and concoct the most way-out-there motive for the US government wanting to mass-murder its own citizens in the most brutal way, in broad daylight, in a way that has repercussions that seriously damage the economy, and creates a crisis with the US's most powerful ally in the middle east.

 

By the way, I foolishly clicked on that link supposedly 'proving' that flight 175 didn't hit the tower. Ridiculous. Is that really the best they can do, the owners of the website called 'PoliceState21'?

 

You should be really careful what you align yourself with. Go onto their website and take a look. It would be scary if it weren't so utterly fatuous - it's full of tales about secret FEMA camps springing up over the country and progressively imprisoning the unsuspecting citizenry,

 

The nuttiest of nutjobs who inhabit this territory fall back on the idea that the whole question of motive is preposterous - that the military-industrial complex doesn't operate with motives. It's just a 'machine'.

 

Unfortunately, buying into this requires believing that we live in a world that's a cross between The Matrix and Terminator.

 

By the way, if you really do believe that civilian planes didn't fly into the towers, where are the missing flights? It would be good to know. Then, for example, I can call Margaret Ogonowski, the wife of the captain of Flight 11, and tell her where her husband is.

[Baj]

concoct the most way-out-there motive for the US government wanting to mass-murder its own citizens in the most brutal way

 

Is a false flag mission really that hard to beleive? After all, such events go back to roman times. Hitler used a false flag event to gain emergency powers, hell, even the CIA documented plans for a false flag attack by themselves, against american civilians... the mass murder of american people by americans as a pretext to war, it was called Operation Northwoods and thankfully JFK made sure that version never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[Verbal]

Is a false flag mission really that hard to beleive? After all, such events go back to roman times. Hitler used a false flag event to gain emergency powers, hell, even the CIA documented plans for a false flag attack by themselves, against american civilians... the mass murder of american people by americans as a pretext to war, it was called Operation Northwoods and thankfully JFK made sure that version never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

 

All of 9/11 was a false flag op? Are you serious?

 

I notice you're forced to quote Hitler as a precedent - plus a dim-brained JCS memo that was never implemented as 'evidence'. And this is the important point: you've come up with what I think at least is a truly half-assed precedent, not a motive.

 

So what's your answer to the question about motive?

 

Where are Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93?

 

And where are the crew and passengers?

[Johnny Bognor]

On the flipside of that, how come nobody photographed/filmed a 757 hitting the Pentagon. There are something like 80 CCTV cameras in various buildings all around the pentagon, and in the days following 9/11 they were seized by the FBI and never released. If just one of those tapes shows flight 77 hitting the pentagon, then why have they not released it and put the conspiracy theory to bed once and for all? Why have they not released pictures of the wreckage with identification proving that it was flight 77? Why was there no wreckage on the lawn? Why is it that plenty of people have testified that what they saw hitting the pentagon was not a 757? How could an inexperienced pilot who, according to his instructor, could barely handle a single-engined Cessna fly straight over the pentagon and then execute an extremely complex 330 degree downward spiral before levelling off at just a few feet above ground level at 500mph and hit the ground floor of the pentagon, in a section that just happened to be empty for renovation anyway, without hitting the ground first? Why would they even do this when it would have been so much easier to just point the plane in a straight line from the direction they came in from?

.

 

 

See

[aintforever]

I guess we'll never get the answers.

 

There will always be unanswered questions, inconsistencies and nut jobs just making stuff up in things like this but there are way more holes in any other theory I have seen than the Bin Laden one.

 

If you have a theory of who did it, how and why, that stacks up, I would love to hear it.

[Baj]

All of 9/11 was a false flag op? Are you serious?

 

I notice you're forced to quote Hitler as a precedent - plus a dim-brained JCS memo that was never implemented as 'evidence'. And this is the important point: you've come up with what I think at least is a truly half-assed precedent, not a motive.

 

So what's your answer to the question about motive?

 

Where are Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93?

 

And where are the crew and passengers?

 

Firstly, can you watch the content of what you post. I've not insulted you in any of your posts, don't insult me.

 

Motive, why do I need to explain a motive? All Ive ever been doing is pointing out where holes lie in the story, I didnt say I was a world strategist with a deep laying understanding of the endgame.

[Johnny Bognor]

Like I said. I don't know. I have read pages and pages of testimonies from NY firefighters and police officers who claim that they witnessed explosions that were totally consistent with demolition 'rings' around the towers just before they collapsed. I have read and watched interviews with survivors who claim they witnessed a massive explosion in the basement of the South tower before the first plane even hit but who's testimony was rejected by the 9/11 commission. Why? There were traces of thermite found in the debris. Why? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the second plane that hit wasn't even a United Airlines 757, but a military plane. Plenty of people have testified to this and the

seems to back it up. Again, this was dismissed. Why?

 

 

See:

 

Oh, and....

 

 

 

.....so if 911 was a cover up, what was 7-7 all about?

 

Was that a cover up too? Our current government couldn't run a bath.

Edited 8 September, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[Verbal]

See

 

Thank god - some common sense at last. I suppose all those photos at the Pentagon crash site will be dismissed in some way as 'plants' or part of a 'false flag'.

 

Brilliant choice of song, by the way...

[Johnny Bognor]

Why is it that plenty of people have testified that what they saw hitting the pentagon was not a 757?

 

Why is it that many testified that is was an airliner?

 

http://www.911research.com/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html

[Verbal]

Firstly, can you watch the content of what you post. I've not insulted you in any of your posts, don't insult me.

 

Motive, why do I need to explain a motive? All Ive ever been doing is pointing out where holes lie in the story, I didnt say I was a world strategist with a deep laying understanding of the endgame.

 

I didn't insult you. I asked you if you were serious. it's an entirely reasonable question.

 

Look, this thread began as a series of comments about the real-time film in NYC. There are some painful images in there of people moments from death. The relatives of those dead, when they've spoken of the conspiracy theories flooding the internet, express their sense of anger and distress.

 

If the conspiracy theories you appear to be aligning with are right, there has to be an explanation as to motive and what happened to the planes, as well as the passengers and crew.

 

I'll happily give anyone the phone numbers of some of those relatives, like Ms Ogonowski, if there is EVER a credible explanation as to where these planes and people are.

[Sheaf Saint]

I foolishly clicked on that link supposedly 'proving' that flight 175 didn't hit the tower. Ridiculous. Is that really the best they can do, the owners of the website called 'PoliceState21'?

 

You should be really careful what you align yourself with. Go onto their website and take a look. It would be scary if it weren't so utterly fatuous - it's full of tales about secret FEMA camps springing up over the country and progressively imprisoning the unsuspecting citizenry.

 

I'm not aligning myself with anything. I'm just raising the questions that nobody who defends the official story seems able to answer. Sorry if the source website for that is too dubious for you. How about

instead.

 

By the way, if you really do believe that civilian planes didn't fly into the towers, where are the missing flights? It would be good to know. Then, for example, I can call Margaret Ogonowski, the wife of the captain of Flight 11, and tell her where her husband is.

 

If I knew the answer to that, I would probably not be debating this subject on a football messageboard.

[SaintSparky]

is there a repeat?

 

I was watching waking the dead

 

Other than online; see the post from .comsaint; the same documentary is being shown on Friday 11th @ 21:00 on History (Sky 529) or an hour later on History+1.

 

Not all of the footage was previously unseen; some was from the NYFD and has previously been seen, this appears to have been skilfully used to link together what appears to be the majority of previously unseen footage.

 

A very powerful and well made documentary.

 

 

Elsewhere; "9/11 Phone Calls from the Towers" is repeated on Friday 11th @ 21:00 & 23:45 on More 4 (22:00 & 00:45 on More 4+1).

 

Also noted a rare touch of class from ITV when they showed "United 93" on ITV1 the other night and they played the film without breaking for adverts.

[mynameisthehulk]

I didn't insult you. I asked you if you were serious. it's an entirely reasonable question.

 

Look, this thread began as a series of comments about the real-time film in NYC. There are some painful images in there of people moments from death. The relatives of those dead, when they've spoken of the conspiracy theories flooding the internet, express their sense of anger and distress.

 

If the conspiracy theories you appear to be aligning with are right, there has to be an explanation as to motive and what happened to the planes, as well as the passengers and crew.

 

I'll happily give anyone the phone numbers of some of those relatives, like Ms Ogonowski, if there is EVER a credible explanation as to where these planes and people are.

 

Can I ask you just a quick question?

 

Do you 100% beleive that the official reports into the 9/11 attacks are entirely accurate?

 

No, I do not beleive that the twin towers were blown up by GWB and the illuminati shape shifting lizzards in co-operation with Haliburton, Monsanto and Nestle, before you ask.

[Johnny Bognor]

I'm not aligning myself with anything. I'm just raising the questions that nobody who defends the official story seems able to answer. Sorry if the source website for that is too dubious for you. How about

instead.

 

In the video they talk about photoshopping the pod out, but it is clearly visible in this video....but how do we know that it was not photoshopped in to suit the conspiracy theorists?

 

Anyway, the video is bull****.

 

Look at the video at 3 minutes 30....... they talk about the flash and how it appears before the airliner strikes.

 

Now go back to the "unphotoshopped" movie at 52 seconds and tell me where the flash has gone. Someone's pullng your plonker.

Edited 8 September, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[Thedelldays]

See:

 

Oh, and....

 

 

 

.....so if 911 was a cover up, what was 7-7 all about?

 

Was that a cover up too? Our current government couldn't run a bath.

 

 

Bali bombings must be a cover up

as would the Embassay bombings

And the attck on the USS Cole (which I have been on)

And the planned attackon a Royal Navy Destroyer (which was thwarted)

and the guys who have just been arrested for planning to blow planes out of the sky..

 

must be all one big cover up..

[Johnny Bognor]

In the video they talk about photoshopping the pod out, but it is clearly visible in this video....but how do we know that it was not photoshopped in to suit the conspiracy theorists?

 

Anyway, the video is bull****.

 

Look at the video at 3 minutes 30....... they talk about the flash and how it appears before the airliner strikes.

 

Now go back to the "unphotoshopped" movie at 52 seconds and tell me where the flash has gone. Someone's pullng your plonker.

 

Oh, and now look at this:

 

Next you'll be telling us that there was a UFO 5 mintutes before 911. It must be true because there is a video of it:

Edited 8 September, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[Verbal]

Can I ask you just a quick question?

 

Do you 100% beleive that the official reports into the 9/11 attacks are entirely accurate?

 

No, I do not beleive that the twin towers were blown up by GWB and the illuminati shape shifting lizzards in co-operation with Haliburton, Monsanto and Nestle, before you ask.

 

Oh heavens, no. In fact there have been several 'corrections' over the years. And a great deal of video evidence has yet to be released (although, contrary to Bexy, there IS video and photographic evidence of Flight 77 at the Pentagon, some of it truly gruesome.)

 

Here's a small example of one of those 'corrections' from my research for the flight 11 film. In the weeks after the attack, the papers were full of accounts of how Atta and two other co-conspirators were drinking themselves silly and 'fraternizing' in a Florida bar. It never happened.

 

Then there are the events which are just really hard to explain. For example, why the hell did Atta and the rest of the Flight 11 attackers board a plane in Portland, Maine, on the morning of 11 Sept, rather than Logan? Than ran the serious risk of missing the AA flight altogether - and very nearly did.

 

And then there are the really unfortunate coincidences. Almost certainly the first person to die was Daniel Lewin. He was a passenger in first class on Flight 11. He was sat direct across from two of the attackers, including Atta, and directly in front of another (He was also sat next to David Lee, the co-creator of 'Frasier'.) Lewin was an extraordinarily successful businessman - he was the owner of 'akamai', an internet company whose name you'll see flashing by as you surf the web. He was also a top-of-the-range former Israeli commando - the kind that goes undercover behind enemy lines. He was fluent in Arabic. From eye-witness accounts from the hostesses on board, he almost certainly tried to intervene. However, when we ran the details of what happened on board, his background fueled the 'truthers' into an anti-semitic frenzy. The attacks were now an Israeli conspiracy not a GWB one.

 

The whole story of 9/11 is surrounded in a fog of information. Some of it makes sense. A lot doesn't.

 

But what I find bizarre is the 'Matrix' view of the world that underpins the 'truther' movement and its attempts to tie all this ifnormation into a neat little conspiratorial ball. At best, it's childish paranoia.

 

I've no doubt whatsoever that Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 were all brought down that day by OBL's cult members. Any alternative explanation has overwhelming problems of common sense, photographic evidence (some of it too horrific to be released) and forensic detail.

[Sheaf Saint]

Well, they say the only true way to prove a theory is to actively try and disprove it. That's what I have just done and I came across this, and it does seem that the evidence for flight 77 hitting the pentagon does seem to fit...

 

even so, there are still too many aspects of it that just don't add up, like the maneuvre that Hani Hanjour pulled off prior to hitting it, and the govt's insistence that they did not know about a plane heading towards the pentagon despite evidence to the contrary.

 

Whatever did happen, we have not been told the whole truth.

[Thedelldays]

Whatever did happen, we have not been told the whole truth.

and we never will or should expect too any time soon...

[Colinjb]

Has anyone considered that the US govenrment may just have tried to call the terrorist's bluff only for it to fail spectacularly?

[Johnny Bognor]

Well, they say the only true way to prove a theory is to actively try and disprove it. That's what I have just done and I came across this, and it does seem that the evidence for flight 77 hitting the pentagon does seem to fit...

 

even so, there are still too many aspects of it that just don't add up, like the maneuvre that Hani Hanjour pulled off prior to hitting it, and the govt's insistence that they did not know about a plane heading towards the pentagon despite evidence to the contrary.

 

Whatever did happen, we have not been told the whole truth.

 

Come on Bexy.

 

You quoted this video:

 

Can you explain the following?

 

Between 3 minutes 30 and 4 minutes 30, they talk about the flash and how it appears before the airliner strikes.

 

Now go back to 52 seconds and tell me where the flash has gone (in their own video).

 

They talk about the video being photoshopped by the authorities when it is 100% clear that the conspiracy theorists have doctored their own videos.

[Baj]

Come on Bexy.

 

You quoted this video:

 

Can you explain the following?

 

Between 3 minutes 30 and 4 minutes 30, they talk about the flash and how it appears before the airliner strikes.

 

Now go back to 52 seconds and tell me where the flash has gone (in their own video).

 

They talk about the video being photoshopped by the authorities when it is 100% clear that the conspiracy theorists have doctored their own videos.

It occurs about 2 frames later, watch the footage WITH the flash again and you will see they stop it sooner

[Ponty]

Gotta say, those flashes are suspect as fewk.

[aintforever]

Well, they say the only true way to prove a theory is to actively try and disprove it. That's what I have just done and I came across this, and it does seem that the evidence for flight 77 hitting the pentagon does seem to fit...

 

even so, there are still too many aspects of it that just don't add up, like the maneuvre that Hani Hanjour pulled off prior to hitting it, and the govt's insistence that they did not know about a plane heading towards the pentagon despite evidence to the contrary.

 

Whatever did happen, we have not been told the whole truth.

 

I think the only feasible false flag attack that could have taken place would be that the planes were hijacked as per the official theory but it was undercover agents from Mossad or similar at the controls of the planes. Just because the arabs were on the planes doesn't mean they flew them.

[Johnny Bognor]

It occurs about 2 frames later, watch the footage WITH the flash again and you will see they stop it sooner

 

The theorists state that the explosion was BEFORE the plane hit. The video on 51 seconds shows the front of the plane hitting the building with no flash. On 47 seconds you see the flash AFTER the plane entered the building. On 5.27 it is also clear as crystal that the flash was AFTER impact.

 

Now look at 3 mins 49 seconds and the flash is now BEFORE impact.

 

I still think it is clever use of windows moviemaker.

Edited 8 September, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[Ponty]

It's also worth remembering that many of the conspiracy theorists that are being scoffed at are far more educated, experienced, professional and knowledgeable about all aspects of commercial and military aircraft, demolition, explosives, etc. than all of us lot put together.

[Sheaf Saint]

Come on Bexy.

 

You quoted this video:

 

Can you explain the following?

 

Between 3 minutes 30 and 4 minutes 30, they talk about the flash and how it appears before the airliner strikes.

 

Now go back to 52 seconds and tell me where the flash has gone (in their own video).

 

They talk about the video being photoshopped by the authorities when it is 100% clear that the conspiracy theorists have doctored their own videos.

 

Just like Baj says, it's pretty clear that at 52 seconds they freeze the video before the impact. I don't see how this constitutes 'proof' that the video was photoshopped.

[Sheaf Saint]

The theorists state that the explosion was BEFORE the plane hit. The video on 51 seconds shows the front of the plane hitting the building with no flash. On 47 seconds you see the flash AFTER the plane entered the building. On 5.27 it is also clear as crystal that the flash was AFTER impact.

 

Now look at 3 mins 49 seconds and the flash is now BEFORE impact.

 

I still think it is clever use of windows moviemaker.

 

Let's just say you're right about the flash, and I can't possibly claim to know what caused it. How do you explain the appendage on the fuselage?

[aintforever]

You quoted this video:

 

LOL at the bloke who swears it wasn't an Airliner, how thick are his glasses!

[Johnny Bognor]

It's also worth remembering that many of the conspiracy theorists that are being scoffed at are far more educated, experienced, professional and knowledgeable about all aspects of commercial and military aircraft, demolition, explosives, etc. than all of us lot put together.

 

 

What some bloke dressed in a pilots uniform with 20 years service...says who? An independent researcher with his own 911 website...so what?