Should we know and do we care?

[LVSaint]

I can't be arsed to watch. Is it on an intellectual par with Loose Change (which you must have seen)? If it's anything like it, I'll pass.

[John Smith]

As someone who's made films about 9/11 and the aftermath, I can tell you that the people whose lives have been most directly affected by events that day are extremely unhappy about the paranoic fantasies of the conspiracy theorists.

 

To give a couple of straightforward examples, I've interviewed the wife of the captain of American Airlines 11 (the plane that hit the north Tower) and the husband of two flight attendants who managed to make detailed calls to the ground as AA11 headed towards the Twin Towers. The film itself was denounced by a number of conspiracy loonies as a 'Zionist psyops operation' (partly because we were the first to tell the story of Daniel Lewin), and the relatives rubbished because in the weird world that is the conspiracy fantasist, no planes hit the Towers, or if they did, they were empty and remote-controlled. The fantasists account for the missing crew and passengers by claiming they were offloaded at Area 51 and executed by the Bush administration. Or some variant on this rubbish.

 

But the relatives themselves, who've had far more access to secret information than anyone outside official circles, this is hurtful garbage. It devalues and diminishes their lost husbands and wives, some of whom - even on AA11 - put up as much resistance as they could in the circumstances and paid for it with their lives.

 

I'm sure that those that were most effected, were those that were directly involved through being there or their family or friends being there. It was a massive day in the lives of many. You may be flying their flag in your post, and for that, I respect your view. I am sure that all those that were directly effected in this tragedy will never 'get over' that day. Equally from the 7/7 attacks. Please do not, for one minute, believe that everyone that doesn't 100% agree with the official story, thinks anything less of the pilots, the passengers, the dead, the injured or the helpers on that day. Regardless of the actual events, I don;t think anyone thinks anything less of anybody.

 

In your post, you also make reference to the 'loonies' and the 'fantasists', just to clarify, not everyone who doesn't believe the official story, 100%, is either a loon or a fantasist. In fact, all the way through this thread, you get the usual internet warrior answers and responses, you know, the standard looney, fantasist comments, that I am sure you were used to in your film making days on 9/11.

 

In the making of those films, the question of conspiracy theories must have raised it's head. Out of interest, what is your take on the official conspiracy theory? Does it hang up 100%? And remebering that the official line is still a theory, as it has never been proven to be true. Same with the 7/7 attacks, no official theory has ever been proven. Therefore, you have to add to the list of conspiracy theories, the government conspiracy theories as well.

 

In believing the theory 100%, I am assuming that the war in Afghanistan is totally justified and that the US government naming Bin Laden within hours of the dust settling, was just real good FBI work? And then, within days, a full scale invasion on the country, which, put us nicely in the region to tidy up Iraq as well. I do find it incredible that the UK was at war with a country many of us had barely heard of and the US was leading this war ona country it had been supplying weapons and training to for a good decade in it's war with Russia, which, it may be added, in all that time, the Russians never won, and it is in their back garden?

 

These last ten years have seen a massive change in airport security, the possibility of id cards, the plastic trace of all your purchases, the freedom of the internet handed over to government control and so on.

 

And in all of this, what have we achieved? Are we safer now? 10 years on, this war on terror, what's the status report? Is it safer for you and I to walk the streets than it was 12 years ago? And if the answer is no, does this mean the terrorists are winning? And if they are, why do we still not know who they are? Because I can tell you, not all people from the middle east are terrorists. And this leads me nicely round to your original point again, let's assume that we all believe that the Pentagon, the Twin Towers, Pensylvania crash, 7/7 etc were all commited by Muslim extremists, does this diminish your thoughts of Muslims? Are Muslims the root of all this destruction? Are we at war with Muslims? And if we are not, but we are loosing this war, could somebody please identify this group and their location that is holding the World to ransom? Because if the Saudi's, the US, Europe and the UN can't find these guys, who are we losing to? Who is this fight against? Where is this fight taking place? if it is in Afghanistan, why are they not still fighting the Russians? Why are the taliban so well armed and able to dig in? But most of all, if we know who they are and where they are, just not let them in to the UK? Anyway, there are many reasons as to why we are in Afghanistan, but, seeing as Bin Ladin is now dead, isn't about time we returned our troops home and stopped any further needless loss of life? Isn;t the job done now? Or have we just caused another 10 years of war and security requirements by creating 10 years of hell for very poor middle eastern people? People like you or I that have a military presecence in their every day lives, they are occupied and live their lives in fear. Bin ladin is dead, isn't the fight over?

[sfc1971]

Can I have an 8/th of that Sh it please John.

[John Smith]

As someone who's made films about 9/11 and the aftermath, I can tell you that the people whose lives have been most directly affected by events that day are extremely unhappy about the paranoic fantasies of the conspiracy theorists.

 

To give a couple of straightforward examples, I've interviewed the wife of the captain of American Airlines 11 (the plane that hit the north Tower) and the husband of two flight attendants who managed to make detailed calls to the ground as AA11 headed towards the Twin Towers. The film itself was denounced by a number of conspiracy loonies as a 'Zionist psyops operation' (partly because we were the first to tell the story of Daniel Lewin), and the relatives rubbished because in the weird world that is the conspiracy fantasist, no planes hit the Towers, or if they did, they were empty and remote-controlled. The fantasists account for the missing crew and passengers by claiming they were offloaded at Area 51 and executed by the Bush administration. Or some variant on this rubbish.

 

But the relatives themselves, who've had far more access to secret information than anyone outside official circles, this is hurtful garbage. It devalues and diminishes their lost husbands and wives, some of whom - even on AA11 - put up as much resistance as they could in the circumstances and paid for it with their lives.

 

As an addition, thought I'd add this to balance it up a bit, not all of the families of 911 want to this to be left alone, in fact some, given below have signed petitions (link below). They don't want this matter covered up, they want it brought to the fore:

 

Family Members

 

Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara

Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC

Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald

Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93

Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th floor

Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1

Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93

Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC, 105th floor

Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon

Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd floor

Ralph D'Esposito, father of Michael D'Esposito, WTC, 96th floor

Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th floor

Adina D. Eisenberg, sister of Eric Eisenberg, WTC

Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagon

Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor

Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11

Irene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon

Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard Guadagno, Flight 93

Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11

Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One, 95th floor

Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers

John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11

L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor, KBW

Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC

Paul & Barbara Kirwin, parents of Glenn Davis Kirwin, Cantor Fitzgerald 105th floor

Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC firefighter

Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in WTC, Tower One

Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene

Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III

Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11

Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch

Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22

Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor

Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1

Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11

James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W. Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11

David Potorti, brother of James Potorti, North Tower, WTC, Marsh & McLennan

Terry Kay Rockefeller, sister of Laura Rockefeller, North Tower, WTC

Grissel Rodriguez-Valentin, wife of Benito Valentin, WTC1, 94th floor

Alissa Rosenberg-Torres, widow of Luis Eduardo Torres, post-9/11 mother, writer

Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber

Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2, 84th floor

Paula Shapiro, mother of Eric Eisenberg, WTC2

Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September 2001

Adele Welty, mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty, FDNY, Squad 288

Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th floor

David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77

Nissa Youngren, daughter of Robert G. LeBlanc, flight 175

 

from the website:

 

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

 

I think this particular signature is very compelling from the other list:

 

Joseph W. Montaperto, New York City Fire Department

 

Also, that this statement is very poignant:

 

Following recent media-generated controversy over Obama appointee Van Jones' signature on this Statement, he and two other signatories have requested their names be removed. That has been done.

 

Let us not forget that we owe it to those that died, their families and ourselves that the 'truth' be told. Without the truth, there will be no peace...

[Verbal]

Okay, John, so why don't you spell it out.

 

Tell us exactly who was responsible for 9/11, what the chain of command was, and the motive for this gigantic, presumably 'world-governmental' conspiracy.

 

By the way, that website is one of the slightly less notorious of the 'truther' organisations. Consequently, it tends to cover a multiplicity of viewpoints - from full-on, tin-foil-hat conspiracy nuts to those calling for the release of remaining documents and recordings, which the FBI in particular have somewhat mishandled over the intervening years, on the somewhat pointless grounds that some information is withheld because it is part of an active investigation. (However, the most decisive omission - the cockpit recordings of Flight 93 - has been withheld because of objections to relatives of those killed in Shanksville.)

[John Smith]

Okay, John, so why don't you spell it out.

 

Tell us exactly who was responsible for 9/11, what the chain of command was, and the motive for this gigantic, presumably 'world-governmental' conspiracy.

 

By the way, that website is one of the slightly less notorious of the 'truther' organisations. Consequently, it tends to cover a multiplicity of viewpoints - from full-on, tin-foil-hat conspiracy nuts to those calling for the release of remaining documents and recordings, which the FBI in particular have somewhat mishandled over the intervening years, on the somewhat pointless grounds that some information is withheld because it is part of an active investigation. (However, the most decisive omission - the cockpit recordings of Flight 93 - has been withheld because of objections to relatives of those killed in Shanksville.)

 

So, you have returned as a conspiracy nut? Wow, big turnaround in such a short space of time. All of a sudden, you are 'demanding' to have answers to questions people have been asking for 10 years. Now, on September 11 2011, you have momentously switched your allegiance and become a nutjob, I'm impressed.

 

Your new found interest on these tragedies has now enlightened you to the possibilities of the 7/7 debacle also. Utilizing your skills as a film maker, and being able to access people of great importance and extract top secret information from them, I for one, will be relishing the release of your next film and I hope to find all the answers contained within it, good luck and God speed...

[dingbattigger]

I have patiently sat and read everything on this thread and I only have one question. Why the hell did I bother?

[Verbal]

So, you have returned as a conspiracy nut? Wow, big turnaround in such a short space of time. All of a sudden, you are 'demanding' to have answers to questions people have been asking for 10 years. Now, on September 11 2011, you have momentously switched your allegiance and become a nutjob, I'm impressed.

 

Your new found interest on these tragedies has now enlightened you to the possibilities of the 7/7 debacle also. Utilizing your skills as a film maker, and being able to access people of great importance and extract top secret information from them, I for one, will be relishing the release of your next film and I hope to find all the answers contained within it, good luck and God speed...

 

Why are you so scared of giving a straightforward answer to a simple question?

[View From The Top]

Why are you so scared of giving a straightforward answer to a simple question?

 

A) Because he's a loon.

 

B) He hasn't a clue.

 

C) He's a loon and hasn't a clue.

[John Smith]

Why are you so scared of giving a straightforward answer to a simple question?

 

Why have you used the word 'scared'? Of what exactly, is this a threat?

 

Or, are you saying that in response to your question you would change yopur mind implicitly, as I suggested in my previous post, which I'm guessing was above your head. Hmm, a bit rude and threatening to be any sort of film producer, interviewing important people with important, key information. Care to post a link to your film, not that I don't believe you or anything. I mean, you'd have to eb a real nutjob to make a claim like that...

[View From The Top]

Why have you used the word 'scared'? Of what exactly, is this a threat?

 

Or, are you saying that in response to your question you would change yopur mind implicitly, as I suggested in my previous post, which I'm guessing was above your head. Hmm, a bit rude and threatening to be any sort of film producer, interviewing important people with important, key information. Care to post a link to your film, not that I don't believe you or anything. I mean, you'd have to eb a real nutjob to make a claim like that...

 

Thought so, the answer is C - Both.

[Verbal]

Why have you used the word 'scared'? Of what exactly, is this a threat?

 

Or, are you saying that in response to your question you would change yopur mind implicitly, as I suggested in my previous post, which I'm guessing was above your head. Hmm, a bit rude and threatening to be any sort of film producer, interviewing important people with important, key information. Care to post a link to your film, not that I don't believe you or anything. I mean, you'd have to eb a real nutjob to make a claim like that...

 

Oh dear. This is all very odd.

 

Let me try again: can you tell us exactly who was really responsible for 9/11, what the chain of command was, and what was the motive for this epic conspiracy?

[John Smith]

Oh dear. This is all very odd.

 

Let me try again: can you tell us exactly who was really responsible for 9/11, what the chain of command was, and what was the motive for this epic conspiracy?

 

You're barely worth me wasting this post, but I'll try again, where is the proof of your credentials you claim? I thank you... (head in hands smiley thingy)

[pap]

Oh dear. This is all very odd.

 

Let me try again: can you tell us exactly who was really responsible for 9/11, what the chain of command was, and what was the motive for this epic conspiracy?

 

What is your opinion on the professional groups such as the Architects & Engineers for truth?

 

These guys have an extremely narrow remit. They're not assigning blame to any organization, covert or otherwise. They're simply saying that the buildings could not have come down the way that they did. They focus especially on building seven, which fell down in freefall without being hit by planes. Essentially, 1500 people putting their livelihoods on the line saying that in their professional opinion, the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

 

How would you assess their motives?

Edited 12 September, 2011 by pap
1600 changed to 1500

[buctootim]

What is your opinion on the professional groups such as the Architects & Engineers for truth?

 

These guys have an extremely narrow remit. They're not assigning blame to any organization, covert or otherwise. They're simply saying that the buildings could not have come down the way that they did. They focus especially on building seven, which fell down in freefall without being hit by planes. Essentially, 1500 people putting their livelihoods on the line saying that in their professional opinion, the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

 

How would you assess their motives?

 

Who knows what their motives are. In any profession with millions of members you will always have a few dissonant voices. You should watch the brief BBC presentation on the twin towers and listen to the voice of the structural engineer who built them (especially around 5:15).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14634600

[pap]

On the off chance you were interested , take a look at this:-

 

9/11 Blueprint for Truth

 

Unfortunately, it is not very sensationalist. They give it a go on the little bits of VT, but mostly, it's a bald bloke giving a Powerpoint presentation supporting the hypothesis of controlled demolition. If you're expecting lizard men and ninja Masons, you'll be disappointed, but they make an interesting case.

 

(I make absolutely no promises that shadowy Government forces will pull this vid in 5 minutes)

[buctootim]

I watched about 30mins of the vid. Seems to me the presenter (an architect of single storey reatil sheds and leisure centres) destoys his own argument. First claims the buildings imploded cleanly in a way which could only be done by expert controlled demolition, then later claims that huge beams from WTC were embedded in other buildings 100 of yards away and that only explosives could have carried them there. Actually being hit by a plane weighing 150 tons flying at 400mph and loaded with thousands of gallons of kerosene seems a more likely explanation to me....

Edited 12 September, 2011 by buctootim

[Verbal]

You're barely worth me wasting this post, but I'll try again, where is the proof of your credentials you claim? I thank you... (head in hands smiley thingy)

 

What? My credentials for what? I'm asking you the simplest of questions. You've started a thread on the subject, and yet like an awful lot of conspiracy theorists appear not to know who exactly is at the heart of the conspiracy.

 

So once again: can you say exactly who was really responsible for 9/11, what the chain of command was, and what was the motive for this murderous conspiracy?

[Verbal]

What is your opinion on the professional groups such as the Architects & Engineers for truth?

 

These guys have an extremely narrow remit. They're not assigning blame to any organization, covert or otherwise. They're simply saying that the buildings could not have come down the way that they did. They focus especially on building seven, which fell down in freefall without being hit by planes. Essentially, 1500 people putting their livelihoods on the line saying that in their professional opinion, the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

 

How would you assess their motives?

 

Regardless of their 'profession', the same question ALWAYS goes unanswered. If buildings were deliberately demolished, then demolished by whom? Why? And what was the chain

of command?

 

Incidentally, Building 7 comes up all the time, despite the fact that there have been plenty of evidence that it was brought down as a result of collateral damage from the collapse of the towers. It's a bit like the rubbish about the absence of plane wreckage around the Pentagon. (Here's a test: see how long it takes you to find dozens of high-quality images of AA plane wreckage around the Pentagon. I bet you can find it in less than 30 seconds.)

[pap]

So your stance is "explain it all, or don't bother"?

 

Those guys have put forward a pretty convincing case that the buildings went down via controlled demolition, using forensic evidence. As stated before, they are not speculating on what they cannot prove, merely illustrating what they can prove.

 

Which of their findings would you dispute?

[Verbal]

So your stance is "explain it all, or don't bother"?

 

Those guys have put forward a pretty convincing case that the buildings went down via controlled demolition, using forensic evidence. As stated before, they are not speculating on what they cannot prove, merely illustrating what they can prove.

 

Which of their findings would you dispute?

 

Convincing? How so? What convinces you? And why is to more convincing than the obvious explanation, given by many, including the experts called upon by Popular Mechanics, that the building was brought down as a consequence of the collapse of the towers?

 

And no, my stance isn't 'explain all or don't bother'? Surely, if your dearly held theory is that building 7 was brought down by a controlled explosion, it's reasonable to ask by whom? Otherwise what the hell is the point of constructing such a hypothesis if the motive and means are absent?

 

It just seems plain weird for the absurdly named 'truthers' to constantly avoid these questions.

[pap]

I've no interest in verbatim regurgitation of a point that someone has already made better than I ever could - but briefly, Popular Mechanics theory is that fires triggered a pancake effect which brought the building down. They completely ignore scientific principles like the theory of least resistance, or the fact that the building was turned to dust. Yet during the riots, we all watched a 100 year old building, with much worse fire-proofing, burn all night without turning to dust.

 

The BBC actually reported WTC7 coming down 23 minutes before it actually happened, with the building actually in frame when the reporter announced it. That is proof of foreknowledge. Can you explain how the BBC were able to report on an event which had not happened yet? With the affected building still in shot behind them?

 

You ask for everything to be explained in a nice little package. You invite people to speculate on stuff for which they have no proof, simply so when they stick their necks out, you can point out the glaring insanity of their speculation.

 

Sure, there are some wild theories out there that cannot be proven. Yet when confronted with people who are applying the scientific method to stuff they can prove, you're not interested.

[aintforever]

The controlled demolition theory is complete nonsense.

 

The buildings gave way at the exact point where the airliners struck- you would have to set up the explosives at the correct floor, then get the pilot to hit the tower at the correct floor, then somehow make sure all the detonators etc worked an hour or so later despite the building being completely wrecked and on fire. Plus to demolish a building that size the explosions would shatter every window for miles.

 

The way the building came down is completely in line with their construction and the way the planes hit. All the strength was in the outer steel walls, these were smashed apart by the impact and explosion and weakened by the fire.

 

The reason WTC7 was reported to have come down early was just bad reporting, I remember on the day the risk of collapse was reported for a while. Someone just got the words 'had' and "will" mixed up. When thing like this happen allsorts of mis-reporting happens (at first it was a light plane).

[stu0x]

The BBC actually reported WTC7 coming down 23 minutes before it actually happened, with the building actually in frame when the reporter announced it. That is proof of foreknowledge. Can you explain how the BBC were able to report on an event which had not happened yet? With the affected building still in shot behind them?

True. It makes a lot more sense that there was an international shadow conspiracy involving the murder of thousands of people that would require the complicit involvement and subsequent silence of hundreds if not thousands of people, all for reasons unknown or too vague to properly explain - and then someone accidentally told a BBC reporter.

[Joey-deacons-left-nut]

I've no interest in verbatim regurgitation of a point that someone has already made better than I ever could - but briefly, Popular Mechanics theory is that fires triggered a pancake effect which brought the building down. They completely ignore scientific principles like the theory of least resistance, or the fact that the building was turned to dust. Yet during the riots, we all watched a 100 year old building, with much worse fire-proofing, burn all night without turning to dust.

 

So on one hand you're slating someone for not using scientific principles, and then on the other you're trying to compare a 3 story 100 year old brick building on fire to a building thats 60 odd floors high , has 40 floors on fire and has half a side missing after getting the largest building in new york dropped onto it.....

 

The BBC actually reported WTC7 coming down 23 minutes before it actually happened, with the building actually in frame when the reporter announced it. That is proof of foreknowledge. Can you explain how the BBC were able to report on an event which had not happened yet? With the affected building still in shot behind them?

.

 

You utter, utter nutjob....

[pap]

The problem with this whole debate is that it is almost religious.

 

You have the likes of the OP claiming that this information is "too hot" and will be pulled by the Government. Then you have people slavishly adhering to the official account. That's why I posted the Architects and Engineers vid. Not sensationalist, based on forensic evidence and the application of scientific methods.

 

If you're not even going to consider the case that these fellows have put forward, then there is no point in a relative thickie like me trying to make the case.

[ottery st mary]

I heard the 9/11 attacks happened because the US government were desperate to destroy crucial evidence proving that man has never walked on the moon. I doubt any of you are going to believe that, but trust me, a mental person told me it was true over the internet once.

 

Man on the moon is totally believable as I was there with the boyzz on a day tour......

 

 

I am possibly that mental person you speak of.....to be fair I was not well in those days...

[Special K]

I watched about 30mins of the vid. Seems to me the presenter (an architect of single storey reatil sheds and leisure centres) destoys his own argument. First claims the buildings imploded cleanly in a way which could only be done by expert controlled demolition, then later claims that huge beams from WTC were embedded in other buildings 100 of yards away and that only explosives could have carried them there. Actually being hit by a plane weighing 150 tons flying at 400mph and loaded with thousands of gallons of kerosene seems a more likely explanation to me....

 

You're joking right. It seems perfectly feasible to me that CIA operatives dressed up as Wily Coyote armed with a bunch of ACME TNT and a trailer wire to a black box with a push down handle were round the corner, ready to strike.

[Tom]

The American Government never lie. Fact.

[sfc1976]

It's funny how these theories always start from a point of view of not trusting anything that the government tells them. They then go on to show an enormous level of faith in the very institution they claim to mistrust. Our government can't even keep the details of the budget secret without someone leaking it days before, yet a conspiracy that would involve hundreds if not thousands of people is given credence! This is even more ridiculous in this case as the people pointing to the most skilful cover up ever are typically the very same people who simultaneously mock the intelligence of the principal characters involved.

[Um Bongo]

Some people do worry me.

[Verbal]

The problem with this whole debate is that it is almost religious.

 

You have the likes of the OP claiming that this information is "too hot" and will be pulled by the Government. Then you have people slavishly adhering to the official account. That's why I posted the Architects and Engineers vid. Not sensationalist, based on forensic evidence and the application of scientific methods.

 

If you're not even going to consider the case that these fellows have put forward, then there is no point in a relative thickie like me trying to make the case.

 

No. The trouble with the debate is that it is distinctly lopsided. Conspiracy theorists simply will not accept a shred of evidence that points to the crazy notion that the attacks on 9/11 were the work of well-funded Islamic exptremists. Every scrap of tenuous evidence has to be twisted into an argument that, bizarrely, they themselves cannot bring themselves to utter explicitly. It's why I asked the question, to which you and your co-theorist John Smith failed to respond (JS even taking the question as a 'threat'!): who was responsible for the attacks on 9/11, and what was the chain of command? Why won't you spell it out?

 

And don't you think you're embarrassing yourself by retailing the guff about a mistaken BBC report? A report in which the reporter says: 'the details are very, very sktechy' and then gets it wrong? So much more credible that the reporter - as your co-theorists believe - was given a script by the mysterious figures who were behind the real attack on the towers.

 

So to sum up, your theory, as you now express it, implicates not only an entire national government, but the foreign news media as well. You have an impressive capacity of suggestibility.

 

But once again, to you and JS: please answer my question. It's not a difficult one, surely.

Edited 13 September, 2011 by Verbal

[pap]

Think I've already made that clear.

 

I don't know.

 

I haven't, at any point, said that I do. Is that a showstopper, though? Does not knowing the whole picture immediately stop police from investigating a murder?

[Verbal]

Think I've already made that clear.

 

I don't know.

 

I haven't, at any point, said that I do. Is that a showstopper, though? Does not knowing the whole picture immediately stop police from investigating a murder?

 

So hazard a guess. You surely can't believe this stuff without some inkling that there must be some credible explanation - that this evil-doing inter-governmental-industrial-media complex has a name

[buctootim]

Secret conspiracies of this nature dont happen. 1. because carrying out acts like blowing up the WTC would necessarily involve people who arent committed to the ideals of the conspiracy but have essential skills (where do you find teams of controlled demolition experts willing to kill thousands of people, if there are only perhaps 50 people with those skills in the world?) 2 , perhaps more importantly than 1 is that there is no gain - political, popular or even financial for the political leaders who supposed framed the conspiracy. Is George Bush's legacy and reputation enhanced by the Iraqi and Afghan wars?

 

I agree about the nature of the debate being almost religious. IMO conspiracy theorists (Alien coverups, JFK, UFOs, MLK, Princess Diana etc) share a psychological makeup with religious fundamentalists - an irrational total conviction in beliefs and ideas which dont stack up, but which they loudly promulgate to an uninterested world.

Edited 13 September, 2011 by buctootim

[pap]

Hey, who says I believe anything?

 

I've posted some links, punctuating your merciless bullying of the OP with some saner stuff. I've also posted a link to a number of conspiracies that turned out to be true, illustrating that this sort of thing is not unprecedented.

 

You're playing the same record, and while I could speculate on possible motives, why is worth my time when you're just going to blast it down?

 

It's obvious you don't entertain any of the alternate theories surrounding 9/11. I haven't got a problem with that. What's your problem with someone holding an alternate view?

[Verbal]

Hey, who says I believe anything?

 

I've posted some links, punctuating your merciless bullying of the OP with some saner stuff. I've also posted a link to a number of conspiracies that turned out to be true, illustrating that this sort of thing is not unprecedented.

 

You're playing the same record, and while I could speculate on possible motives, why is worth my time when you're just going to blast it down?

 

It's obvious you don't entertain any of the alternate theories surrounding 9/11. I haven't got a problem with that. What's your problem with someone holding an alternate view?

 

The problem - or one of many - is that while 'truthers' won't accept that Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks, carried out by 19 zealots, they equally refuse to say out loud who the prime suspect is. I suspect this is because the answer will sound awfully like: 'the mysterons'.

 

Who is your prime suspect? Or how about a list of the top three. If not Al Qaeda, who? Not so difficult a question is it? I'm only asking you for your informed guess.

[pap]

Secret conspiracies of this nature dont happen. 1. because carrying out acts like these necessarily involve people who are outside the conspiracy circle and arent comitted to the ideals of the conspiracy but have essential skills (where do you find teams of controlled demolition experts willing to kill thousands of people, if there are only perhaps 50 people with those skills in the world?) 2 , perhaps more importantly than 1 is that there is no gain - political, popular or even financial for the political leaders who supposed framed the conspiracy.

 

I agree about the nature of the debate being almost religious. IMO conspiracy theorists (Alien coverups, JFK, UFOs, MLK, Princess Diana etc) share a psychological makeup with religious fundamentalists - an irrational total conviction in beliefs and ideas which dont stack up, but which they loudly promulgate to an uninterested world.

 

Many conspiracies have actually happened.

 

You mention JFK. It is now accepted by the US government that Kennedy "was very likely assassinated as part of a conspiracy". They didn't get as far as naming names, but that was the conclusion they maintained. I posted a list of conspiracies that turned out to be true earlier in the thread.

 

I don't necessarily buy that there was nothing to gain, either. Strategically, the US has a massive foothold in the Middle East in places that have valuable commodities. Those in the military industrial complex have made plenty of money, either through no-bid contracts or being part of the war economy.

 

Many of the Bush administration openly proclaimed that "America's Next Century" would be shaped by force of arms in the 2000 document, Rebuilding America's Defenses - citing that they wanted the US military to be able to fight "multiple simultaenous theater wars". This isn't conspiracy - it's what they said and signed up to.

 

Don't forget the highly contentious 2000 Presidential Elections, which saw George W. Bush win in a contest rife with accusations of electoral rigging, especially in the state of Florida, which happened to be governed by his brother. Or the fact that the plans for the Iraq War pre-dated Afghanistan and 9/11. All of this stuff is a matter of record. We Brits weren't entirely blameless either. What else was the Iraq Dossier but a deliberate conspiracy to mislead Parliament and the general public?

 

None of this, of course, is proof of anything surrounding 9/11, but it does raise a few questions. I don't think you have to swallow any story wholesale, whether it comes from the Government or the Interwebs.

Edited 14 September, 2011 by pap

[buctootim]

Im not saying that politicans and political parties dont have domestic and foreign policy agendas, sometimes secret, far from it. We all know they do, thats their raison d'etre. Will they tell a few lies and do favours for their friends along the way to aid the brew? yes absolutely. Was 9/11 exploited after the event as an excuse to go into Iraq and Afghanistan and be seen to be 'doing something'? - yes. But both of those are totally different kettle of fish from organising specialist teams of Americans to build and fly remote control airplanes into buildings occupied by 50,000 of their own countrymen and then have another team of American detonate explosives to bring down the buildings onto people as they try to flee. Why would American professional and tech geeks do this? kill up to 50,000 fellow citizens and potentially their own families so that politicians have an excuse to invade Iraq at the behest of the military industrial complex? Some how I dont think so.

Edited 14 September, 2011 by buctootim

[Tom]

http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

[John Smith]

What? My credentials for what? I'm asking you the simplest of questions. You've started a thread on the subject, and yet like an awful lot of conspiracy theorists appear not to know who exactly is at the heart of the conspiracy.

 

So once again: can you say exactly who was really responsible for 9/11, what the chain of command was, and what was the motive for this murderous conspiracy?

 

You seem like a very angry little man, shall I appease you? Hmmm...

 

You see, despite all your posturing and feet stamping and a very spoilt little brat technique of trying to get your own way, I shall endure you a little while longer, just because I can.

 

Now, you'll have to listen very carefully, because this is top secret information...

 

A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. How do I know, I here you cry, and a few more feet being stamped, I know, because it didn't. Forget the images of the collapsed front of the Pentagon, that's not what originally happened. The 16ft hole that an entire 757 disappeared into, was not big enough. But wait, I here you stamp those feet again, but the experts told me so. OK, I hear you, go to the airport and ask a kind person to point out a Boeing 757 out to you, better still, here's a link:

 

http://www.1leaks.org/index.php?page=view/article/77/Evidence-Showing-that-NO-Boeing-757-crashed-into-the-Pentagon-on-911

 

Oh, and it has one of those nutjobs sueing the government for trying to blow her up...

 

Anyway, scroll to nearly the bottom and you'll notice 2 massive objects hangining off of the wings, that'll be the 124ft wing span, those will be the engines. Do you know what kind of explosion it takes to "disintigrate" and totally "obliterate" these engines? OK, let's say you do, where does that explosion come from? It isn't the wings, because they entered the Pentagon with the rest of the aeroplane into that 16ft hole (no, not the one at the back, nice try though). What's that, they didn't? Oh, so they'll be a 124ft explosion which destroyed the Pentagon? Oops, nope, there is no other explosive area damage other than the hole. You do know the 757 stores it's explosive fuel in the wings right? You do. OK, so, then why did the rest of the plane disintigrate if the wings never entered the building? Hang on, nope, not the cabin, the tail. Why the Tail, well, becasue it's 44ft tall and contains no fuel. It also, never enterered the Pentagaon as there is no 44ft gash from the floor to the roof of the Pentagon. Oh, that disappeared as well did it? Was that from the wings exploding or the main body of the plane exploding or is this the non-disitegrated plane that slid through the Pentagon without disintegrating and then disintegrated after it exited the back of the Pentagon?

 

Confused? Damn right! Just look at the images after immediately after the hit and before the collapse, a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon!

 

What... Still stamping feet? OK, did you know that, in order to hit the Pentagon, the terrorists had to bank 270 degrees (after following the Hudson) and in that 270 degree turn, it had to descend 300feet, and at a height of 7 feet (yes that's 7 feet), travelling at 500mph (this is the official story remember) ploughed into the Pentagon (BTW, Pentagon anti aircraft defence was not working that day). These terrorists were amazing pilots. What did the terrorists pilot trainers say about there capabilities, and I quote "I wouldn't let them drive a car". Can't be bothered with more links (I hear you stamping, but tough). Also, eyewitnisses within 200 metres of the Pentagon identified the plane that hit the pentagon as "a small commercial plane" or something similar. Check out the CCTV again, then look at the 757 image, notice the nose cone, hmm, certainly wasn't concorde that hit it, but still.

 

Anyway, the Pentagon worker that was working out the back heard and felt the exploosion, hit the deck and raised his head to see a large military type plane pulling up sharply after a near miss with the Pentagon and it flew away. Then we have the eye witnesses that say the plane that came in from one direction, but the government say it came from another. All the CCTV from around the Pentagon was seized and has never seen the light of day again, including the shops and businesses nearby, which would've clearly shown the flight path.

 

Now, lastly, here's a good one for you, did you know that an engineer grad from Oxford Brookes applied for recordings of the black box that hit the Pentagon, under the freedom of information act. They were able to decode it and found, that the plane was 70ft too high to have hit the Pentagon, oh, BTW, you do know the FBI couldn't recall where they found the black box exactly?

 

Anyway, I know I haven't answered your childs tantrum of a quizzing, demanding that as the OP, I dance to your tuine and your demands, but, I hope you appreciate the time and effort put into this post and actually do some work of your own. Focus on the Pentagon, focus on what they have said, what you know about the scale of a 757 and what you can see with your own eyes.

 

Sorry, misleading, this isn't Top Secret, it f**king obvious!

[buctootim]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49c_1252531394

http://www.spike.com/video-clips/6lhdrj/plane-strikes-pentagon-second-angle

Edited 16 September, 2011 by buctootim

[keithd]

 

Now, lastly, here's a good one for you, did you know that an engineer grad from Oxford Brookes applied for recordings of the black box that hit the Pentagon, under the freedom of information act. They were able to decode it and found, that the plane was 70ft too high to have hit the Pentagon, oh, BTW, you do know the FBI couldn't recall where they found the black box exactly?

 

 

aside from all the other "interesting" bits you just posted, this stuck out. Are you/they saying that the plane flew 70 feet over the pentagon and went on its way? Oh and those that were on that plane are where now? Locked up in Area 51 or executed somewhere?

[Tom]

John Smith rocks my world.

[Griffo]

I believe him.

[Verbal]

...Sorry, misleading, this isn't Top Secret, it f**king obvious!

 

Aside from the links that Tim has offered you, above, which I'm sure you'll ignore but which easily debunk this nonsense, I'm even more puzzled as to why you won't answer my question. If it is, as you charmingly say, 'f**king obvious', then surely it must be equally 'f**king obvious' who the 'real' perpetrators are. Or at least, you surely have a pretty good idea.

 

So let's assume your barmy idea is true. Who did it? What was the chain of command? And what was the motive?

 

And no - my asking you this question is not a 'threat'. It's just a simple question (or three.) Is that okay?

[pap]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49c_1252531394

http://www.spike.com/video-clips/6lhdrj/plane-strikes-pentagon-second-angle

 

Don't get it.

 

Where's the 757?

[buctootim]

Don't get it.

 

Where's the 757?

 

Right there, embedded in the big building, just under the fireball.

[pap]

I saw an explosion, I saw a computer generated version of a 757 in a debunking reconstruction.

 

Didn't see any actual footage of a 757 though.

[Verbal]

I saw an explosion, I saw a computer generated version of a 757 in a debunking reconstruction.

 

Didn't see any actual footage of a 757 though.

 

i'm not sure what this means. Are you saying there is no evidence of 757 plane wreckage?

 

Oh, and still want to know who you think did it if not Al Qaeda. Go on - have a stab (so to speak).