Adventure Game Studio

It's a fairly long video. Appears to be well documented and raises a lot of questions.
Watch it with an open mind and it sort of makes ya wonder

http://www.policestateplanning.com/loose_change_ii.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
(Some good answers to the physical evidence)

If we assume that the government did plan this, it raises strategic questions. The scope of the attacks leaves more room for error (as more people would have to be in on it, leading to a greater chance of information leaks) and creates many logistical problems. Also, if the government were trying to make it look like a terrorist attack, they wouldn't have made it seem like a coordinated effort (as there has never been a terrorist attack this organized before).

It's especially insensitive that these conspiracy theorists would go to ground zero and try to convince mourners face to face. Many people lost loved ones and family members, and it saddens me to see salt rubbed in their emotional wounds.  No respect.

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=25445.0  we already had this thread I believe.

Also, when did "having an open mind" mean "disregarding all other evidence".

MrC:  Oops. Me sorry. Forgot about that old thread. 

Anyways, here's another link to an interesting radio interview that was done with Charlie Sheen regarding the 911 stuff:
http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/200306sheen.htm

BigBro:  I wasn't trying to make a feeling of "no respect". Contrary, I was trying to simply share a documentary about the events that perhaps had a rather interesting or different perspective on the whole thing compared with how perhaps the majority of the US media portrayed the events and aftermath as.

Hey Barbarian, sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant that the people on ground zero spreading the theory showed no respect for the losses of New Yorkers.

Thanks for sharing the documentary.

BigBro: No problem.Ã,  :) I guess just reading plain text on the internet, sometimes it might be easy to misunderstand some comments.

Myself, I don't quite fully believe all the points raised in that documentary, however I can certainly agree with many of the questions they raise or perhaps more leads me to think that there's probably more of a "cover up" to certain events than people are generally aware of.

The thing is, with many huge events people can't accept the simple answer.

We never went to the moon. There was a government conspiracy to kill JFK. There was a Royal conspiracy to kill Lady Di.

We went to the moon. Lee Harvey shot JFK on his own. Lady Di got into a car crash. Hijackers crashed planes into the world trade center, the pentagon and almost the white house.

Having an open mind should mean you take in all evidence that is actually evidence. People using Adobe Premier to zoom in on a jpegy image of a plane and trying to say that 2 pixels is a missle, in my opinion, is not evidence. The same way that the face on mars is not evidence of life on mars because if you only look at 1 image where the shadows were just right it does resemble a face, but if you look at the countless other images, it's just a mountain.

As I believe I said in the last thread, a terrorist strike of this size and complexity against the US is huge and scary. Why do we have to try and make it even more awesome [not in the AWESOME! sense] when it's already a very huge deal?

Eric

Given their track record of competency at just about anything else, it is amazing that people actually believe the government capable of keeping such massive conspiracies succesfully covered-up.

(which I believe is paraphrased from a Pratchett quote, but I couldn't locate the original)

I wish I could translate all what I've read about 11-M in Madrid to start a thread like this about what happened in my country...  :'(

I don't have any doubt about the twin towers, but the whole pentagon thing is very strange...

Though this topic has been discussed in the past.

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=17371.0

The issue here is that there are more questions than answers for 9/11.  Of course the government isn't talking.  All they can do is point fingers at Osama bin Laden, who, by the way, hasn't been caught yet.

The towers were designed to withstand the impact from
jetliner(s), such as those that hit the buildings that day. 

However, the collapse thing is just rediculous.  There is no way that those ENTIRE towers collapsed JUST because of the fires inside them.  I could accept it if just the upper portions of the building gave way, but for both of them to fall straight down like that... too incredible. 

The controlled demolition idea makes sense to me, and is evidenced by what eye witnesses, firefighters, video footage, and experts repeatedly described.  And seeing that Trade Center 7 WAS destroyed with demolition, and given the fact that it fell in the exact same manner as the twin towers, it seems to make sense.  Oh yes, and the massive insurance benifit that Larry Silverstein stood to gain.

I can't say that the government fully orchestrated the events of 9/11, because there just isn't enough evidence yet.  But 9/11 was, at very least, ALLOWED to happen by the government. 

Don't know really...

Interesting documentary no doubt Barbarian, and thank you for posting it. Of course it has been discussed before (and probably more than one times).

I'm trying to think of what to write so that this post won't seem useless, so here goes:

It does seem really really big, for anyone to believe that it just sliped and happened, but on the other hand it is simply too big fro the goverment to just let it happen.

I will give my 2 cents on the simmilar events of London next year (from 911 that is).

THere were 2 bombings. The 1st killed something like 50 people in the centre of London in Tube stations. That was terroriests act, no doubt for me.

The 2nd was a fiasko. Nobody was even hurt and they really started terrorizing everybody. To me this 2nd blow (something like 2 weeks after the 1st), was a scheme to alert the civilians even more. No casualties and the official announcment was that all the bombs were made, not to be triggered (something along these lines anyway). I mean come on... Who would go into all the trouble, after killing so many people, only to warn them and do no harm?

But 911 is just too big to be ignored, and too big to be the goverments plan, and too big to just admit that CIA, FBI and everybody else are stupid.

1) Even if the conspiracies are true, the evidence is not there. (And if it is, no one is going to do anything about it.)

2) People with money and power do atrocities to us, the little people, all the time. (Read your history books.)

3) We live in their world, they sway us the way they like. (It's called propaganda.) If you don't like it...too bad!

4) The media is controlled by those with money and power. They help sway the masses.

5) So who has all the money? Where do they get all this money? What does a rich (wo)man do with all this money? It's really quite simple... 

Quote from: Raggit on Sun 07/05/2006 21:46:47
The towers were designed to withstand the impact from
jetliner(s), such as those that hit the buildings that day. 

Which, rather obviously, had never been tested in practice. Field conditions never match the design lab.

Quote
However, the collapse thing is just rediculous.  There is no way that those ENTIRE towers collapsed JUST because of the fires inside them. 

Not the flames, but the massive impact. Given that you can collapse a bridge by marching a group of soldiers over it, it is entirely plausible that being hit by a high-velocity airplane can cause an entire building to collapse.

Kinetic energy equals half mass times velocity squared. Cruise speed for an airplane is about 1000 km/h (280 m/s) and it weighs at least 300 tons loaded. Do the math and you end up with a blast of about 11.6 GIGAjoules of energy. That's the equivalent of eight lightning bolts, three tonnes of TNT, or an hour's worth of five hundred horsepower. And that's not accounting for the fuel that the planes were carrying.

I don't know has spread the ridiculous idea that the buildings were preppaired to support the crash , therefore, the cause was not the crash, ergo, Bush bombed them.

I've heard one of the living designers saying it was not designed for planes of that size... I was with an architect the day of the crash and he told they were going to collapse. I did not believe him...

Were do you get the idea that a building with the collums severelly damaged is not going to fall the way it did? Do you know how many tons do weight 20 floors of a scrycrapper? Do you really think it's going to fall to one side, like the Chrisley bulding in "Armaggedon"? Do you think a bulding falls in the same way as a feather? These ideas are so ridiculous that seems difficult to discuss...

Do you know how many kilos of c2, c3, semtex or any other explosive is needed to make the WTC collapse? How do you think they put it there during the night or what? Did someone made the explosives appear suddenly?

Is David Copperfield involved in the 911?

And when did they made the charges explode? During the moment of the crash? That's the only possible moment, no? There were no more explossions after that. So... do you really think, guys, that someone is able to hijack two planes, make them crash against two buildings, and detonate 2 charges of explosives in that exact moment, and calculate the way to make the towers collapse, not in that moment, but 40 mins. and 1 hour after the crash? That guy must have been a genious.

Bush is an ass, ok. But when you go with no senses like this to make him look even worse, what you are really archiving is people to think "If people who dislike Bush is so crazy for believing this crap, maybe Bush is not that bad..."  ???

So, guys, look for the thruth, even if it is boring. Bush is stupid enough to make the republican party lose the next 20 presidentials without this crap.

Quote from: Raggit on Sun 07/05/2006 21:46:47

However, the collapse thing is just rediculous.Ã,  There is no way that those ENTIRE towers collapsed JUST because of the fires inside them.Ã,  I could accept it if just the upper portions of the building gave way, but for both of them to fall straight down like that... too incredible.Ã, 

And yet it happened, and millions and millions and millions of people saw it all live in front of their eyes. Which leads into the second bit:

Quote
The controlled demolition idea makes sense to me, and is evidenced by what eye witnesses, firefighters, video footage, and experts repeatedly described.Ã, 

First off, can you supply sources for the experts that are repeatedly describing controlled demolition? Also, the eye witnesses and fire fighters who were inside the building as it began to collapse. Have they ever been inside a sky scraper as it was crumbling down around them? If no then how does that become evidence?

If one has no prior experience with what a building is like as it is destroyed, how does being an eyewitness help?

Quote
I can't say that the government fully orchestrated the events of 9/11, because there just isn't enough evidence yet.Ã,  But 9/11 was, at very least, ALLOWED to happen by the government.Ã, 

I asked this question in the old thread: Why?

Why was it allowed?

If you can believe that the US government somehow allowed a terrorist strike to hit the US [which would take a lot of covering up, a lot of people would have to be silenced. A lot. Please speak on this idea, that if it's a cover-up and was allowed to let happen. What happened to the [personal estimation] 200 people that would have to know about it and be in on it?] then do you believe that we went to the moon?

There are plenty of reasons why the US would fake a moon landing and each of them is about as stretched as "To invade Iraq" or "For geopolitical power".

Radiant, my point was the bulk of the fuel was consumed in the initial fireball, and the fires did not burn hot enough, or long enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse. Ã, The towers were over-engineered, and I believe the creators specified that even if two of the main support columns were entirely cut, the towers still would've stood.

The trade center buildings had well over 1000 times the mass of the aircrafts that hit them, and were built to withstand high wind loads of 30 times the aircraft's weight.
The buildings would've easily absorbed whatever energy and shock was produced by the initial impact. Ã, 

It is interesting to note that none of the steel from the wreckage of the towers was tested or studied to see what caused it to fail. Ã, The towers were allegedly built with very high-intregrity steel, which would've have easily survived the heat. Ã, If these two buildings were the first in history to entirely collapse due to melting steel, you'd think that'd be worth investigating.

Mr. Colossal:

I didn't say the towers DIDN'T collapse at all, I said I didn't think they collapsed for the reasons given in the official explanation. 

As for demolition:  Here are three sources for two experts, as well as one ABC news anchor (not as relevant) discussing the collapse of the towers, including their future retractions, which should raise some suspicion:
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

I would encourage you to look at any footage of the trade centers collapsing.  The towers just seem to slide into the earth, as if they were sitting on top of a massive hole in the ground, and somebody just pulled the foundation right out from under them.
This is characteristic of any controlled demolition.  It's very smooth, very quick.

Again, if the frame of the structure gave way because of melting steel, the whole building wouldn't have just fell in on itself, only the affected floors would fall away, and I would expect more of a crumbling effect.  I probably don't need to point out that Windsor tower in Madrid burned for nearly 24 hours, and lost only a piece of the upper floors where the fire was. 

The eyewitnesses and firefighters that survived described multiple explosions, some of which actually blew them against the wall, etc.  They all believed that there were bombs planted throughout the building.  Eye witnesses on the outside said they saw several bright, quick flashes, with audible explosions as the towers fell.  Some video footage contain these flashes. 

Finally, most of all, I'd suggest looking into what happened to building 7.  No airplane hit that one, and it fell straight down like the other two.  Larry Silverstein, who said he gave the command to "pull it."  Which means "demolish."  Look
here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

Now the big question of "WHY"

I think the quick answer is, of course, leverage.  But there's more to it than just creating a quick tragedy to create an enemy with.  If 9/11 was a strategy of our government, it was to gain control of the CITIZENS of this country. 
It wasn't intended to serve as an excuse to invade Iraq.  The Iraq plan existed long before Bush even took office.  (See New American Century letter to Bill Clinton.)

9/11 is considered the worst attack ever on American soil.  Because of the intense fear and trauma that gripped the nation after 9/11, the government was able to get the PATRIOT Act passed, which had previously been turned down by congress because it was too sweeping and unconstitutional. 

Even now, Bush and his gang are STILL using 9/11 to manipulate people and to justify their actions.  Look what happens whenever people question Bush about the war.  All he has to do is mention 9/11 and terrorism, and people shut up. 

So, in the eyes of the government, 9/11 was the ultimate pass key to everything they ever wanted to do, and they will continue to use it to get what they want. 

That's why they would've allowed it to happen. 

I think that if the "main column" of your theory is all the fuel of a plane is consumed after a crash... We can change of topic.

So then, did we land on the moon?

Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 07/05/2006 23:48:27
So then, did we land on the moon?

It's very likely, in my mind.  I've not studied the conspiracy theories behind the moon landing, and what motivations we would've had to fake it.

I don't have any doubts about it myself. 

Have you read about many explinations as to why the towers did collapse? Or do you only read about the conspiracy?

Also, if this was allowed to happen by the US government, what about the hundreds of people that would know that it was a cover up?

I am familiar with the non-conspiracy explanations for the collapse of the towers, such as the "pancake effect," or whatever they called it. 
After 9/11, I was acceptiong of ANY explanation, just because I was shocked.  I believed every word Bush spoke, and supported him fully.  But as the trauma from 9/11 wore off, I began to think for myself, and I realized that maybe he wasn't everything he said he was.  Once I started looking into these things, it just started getting deeper and deeper, and more complex. 

Where I stand today is a far cry from the "We just need to support our president no matter what" stance I used to hold.

As for those involved in the cover up, they're either benificiaries of the scheme, and have no reason to reveal information, or they are blackmailed, discredited and forced to be quiet.
I would cite Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame as examples of the depths the White House will sink to in order to shut people up who know too much.

Outing a CIA agent and smearing Richard Clarke is a far far cry from allowing the murder of thousands of Americans. If you allow the murder of thousands of Americans why did they just out Valerie Wilson? Why didn't they just have her killed "Woops, sometimes that happens in the CIA!" why aren't they assassinating anyone who disagrees with them?

If they have the ability to destroy the sense of security of the American people, destroy 2+ buildings, kill thousands of people, leave thousands and thousands more without jobs and destroy the economy. Why did they just leak Valerie Wilson's name?

Obviously you can't go around assassinating people who disagree with you, people would notice. But you also can't go around allowing terrorists to succeed in attacking the US 3 times in one early morning strike without someone SCREAMING against it. How can they possibly keep hundereds of people quiet? Blackmail and payoffs make no sense, how can you believe that?

"Perfect paranoia is perfect awareness."

LimpingFish puts away his Big Book of Quotes

Quote from: Raggit on Sun 07/05/2006 23:34:56
...the fires did not burn hot enough, or long enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse. Ã, 

Um...yes they did. That is a simple fact.

The Feul from the planes saturated the floors that they hit.

Quote from: Merchant Of Death on Mon 08/05/2006 03:12:27

Quote from: Raggit on Sun 07/05/2006 23:34:56
...the fires did not burn hot enough, or long enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse. Ã, 

Um...yes they did. That is a simple fact.

The Feul from the planes saturated the floors that they hit.

Proof?

Proof in the opposite direction?

I think 911 was planned by an elit emilitant group of conspiracy theorists so they and their colleagues had a new topic to obsess over. Apparently, though, there has been a 911 every year for at least the last 100 years, but the government has hushed them up! :o :o :o ::)

Quote
The towers were over-engineered, and I believe the creators specified that even if two of the main support columns were entirely cut, the towers still would've stood.

The towers were engineered differently than older and more time-tested skyscrapers, and many experts claim that an old-style skyscraper would have withstood the attack better. You can't compare the neat removal of redundant support columns with the impact of a hundred tons of flying steel. My source is the Wikipedia article; what is yours?

Quote
The trade center buildings had well over 1000 times the mass of the aircrafts that hit them,

Plausible, but entirely irrelevant if you know anything about demolition, or classical mechanics. Impulse equals mass times VELOCITY, therefore a smaller mass moving at a higher speed can do ugly things to a larger mass that is stationary.

Quote
and were built to withstand high wind loads of 30 times the aircraft's weight.

Physically speaking, that sentence doesn't make any sense. You're comparing wind speed with aircraft weight, the proverbial apple and orange. (if you want to compare velocities, cruise speed of an airplane is several times faster than hurricane-level wind speed)

Quote
The buildings would've easily absorbed whatever energy and shock was produced by the initial impact. 

Both theory and practice easily prove you wrong. Please read up into physics before talking about energy absorption like this.

Quote
It is interesting to note that none of the steel from the wreckage of the towers was tested or studied to see what caused it to fail.  The towers were allegedly built with very high-intregrity steel, which would've have easily survived the heat. 

There was an extensive investigation, and the conclusion was that the initial shockwave caused the removal of large amounts of fireproofing, which allowed the kerosene-fueled fire to wreak havoc. Fire can cause damage in other ways than melting the steel.

Quote
I would encourage you to look at any footage of the trade centers collapsing.  The towers just seem to slide into the earth, as if they were sitting on top of a massive hole in the ground, and somebody just pulled the foundation right out from under them.

This is characteristic of gravity. Towers don't fall sideways, they fall down.

Quote
Again, if the frame of the structure gave way because of melting steel, the whole building wouldn't have just fell in on itself, only the affected floors would fall away, and I would expect more of a crumbling effect. 

It's fine that you expect that, but your earlier posts have not exactly indicated a substantial grasp of high-level physics. Steel doesn't have to melt to collapse.

Quote
The eyewitnesses and firefighters that survived described multiple explosions, some of which actually blew them against the wall, etc.  They all believed that there were bombs planted throughout the building.

They ALL believed that? Heck no. Of course there were multiple explosions; if a fire spreads, any time it hits a new source of fuel (such as a large room full of oxygen) it causes a flare.

Quote
Finally, most of all, I'd suggest looking into what happened to building 7.  No airplane hit that one, and it fell straight down like the other two.

The results were similar therefore the causes must have been similar. That reasoning is fallacious. Sorry, but your scientific and logical backing doesn't hold water.

And you think you're open-minded.

"I think tha..." "DISMISSED"

Jeeeesus...

I hate these conspiracy theories. And I think such thing discussion should not be allowed here because 1) disrespects thosands of victims and their famlilies 2) it's propaganda against Americans, and I'm not American, and this is a worldwide forum and I don't think political arguments bashing any country or nation should be allowed in a place like this.

Some of the arguements people have posted are ridiculous like "the building were desgined to withstand a jet crash" who the hell would plan a building thinking how to defend it from a jet crashing through it? no one could ever think about such a thing it never happened anywhere.
I'm not gonna furhter discuss other arguements cos they don't deserve to be discussed.

PROOF!?

I can not say what exatly happened. It is all possible you know. Maybe the US didn't planned, but decided to close their eyes about it. Maybe not. Truth is hard to find.
The fact is: The 09.11 was used as an excuse for USA to play the war game. So were Saddam's bombs. USA doesn't seem like the good guys to me. Sad, but true. ::)

PORFO!1!?!?

Quote from: Raggit on Sun 07/05/2006 23:34:56
Radiant, my point was the bulk of the fuel was consumed in the initial fireball, and the fires did not burn hot enough, or long enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse. Ã, The towers were over-engineered, and I believe the creators specified that even if two of the main support columns were entirely cut, the towers still would've stood.

It is interesting to note that none of the steel from the wreckage of the towers was tested or studied to see what caused it to fail.Ã,  The towers were allegedly built with very high-intregrity steel, which would've have easily survived the heat.Ã,  If these two buildings were the first in history to entirely collapse due to melting steel, you'd think that'd be worth investigating.

"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
(http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y)

In addition refer to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34342,00.html. Apparently, some asbestos insulation could've gone a long way.

QuoteThe fact is: The 09.11 was used as an excuse for USA to play the war game. So were Saddam's bombs. USA doesn't seem like the good guys to me. Sad, but true.

What?
With the 1988 Genocide of the Kurds under his belt (close to 200,000 men, women, and children), Saddam's not exactly an innocent softie. Unlike Santa Claus, he does not want to deliver presents to the children of the world. And maybe the fact that UN inspectors (can anyone say mole?) could not find evidence in Iraqi weapon facilities means that the US invasion was timed well enough to be preventive. There's still little things like this: http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/ that I find suspicious.
I just don't feel sympathy for the guy.

But that's a whole other hive of bees.

QuoteOh yes, and the massive insurance benifit that Larry Silverstein stood to gain.

This is not me saying this didn't happen, but I really really would rather believe there is NO MAN ALIVE ON THIS EARTH that would kill so many innocent people for financial gain. Not if they can get away with it, not if they can't, doesn't matter. My brain just refuses to believe this. Note: I can accept and do accept that countries, people on the whole will butcher as many children for money or power as they have to, but the dynamics of group action have peculiarities all of their own. It's easy to do something atrocious when you're part of and hidden behind a regime or group that uniformly 'takes the blame', and it happens over a long period of time and many things happen at the same time diffusing the situation.

But if there is a man that can stand there all by his self and can say "yes, I will now press this button and instantly kill 10,000 people because it will make me rich" then... wow. I can't even grasp this! I am not very naive, but that is just beyond me. This doesn't provide any evidence against the premise of this Larry being that kind of man, just saying, if he exists, I would probably look right through him and disregard him as existing completely, this is how much I don't get it.

Quote1) Even if the conspiracies are true, the evidence is not there. (And if it is, no one is going to do anything about it.)

Not much for civil action are you? Democracy?

Quote2) People with money and power do atrocities to us, the little people, all the time. (Read your history books.)

and things have to be as they always were, right?

Quote3) We live in their world, they sway us the way they like. (It's called propaganda.) If you don't like it...too bad!

Not much for civil action are you? Democracy?

Quote4) The media is controlled by those with money and power. They help sway the masses.

and things have to be as they always were, right?

Quote5) So who has all the money? Where do they get all this money? What does a rich (wo)man do with all this money? It's really quite simple...

PLEASE TELL ME. SERIOUSLY. I NEED TO KNOW THIS SIMPLE THING.

QuoteThere are plenty of reasons why the US would fake a moon landing and each of them is about as stretched as "To invade Iraq" or "For geopolitical power".

I agree with almost everything else you've said in this thread and find this very far-fetched myself. However, your 'why' question begs for oversimplifications nobody can provide about anything that *has* happened too. Historians try and they're doing the most educated guesses and still they themselves say that things happen as they do in very complicated concert. The greeks didn't go to war with troy over the beautiful Helen any more than did the americans drop the bomb. There is no simple answer to your 'why' on anything. It's so many little cells made of people doing so many different things that interface on the microscopical level to the most absurd global level at the same time that are driven this way and that in the course of history. Why did World War II happen? Because the way of the world demanded it. Why did 9/11 happen? Because the way of the world demanded it. This isn't to say these are *answers*. But your question cannot be answered in a single breath by anyone on this planet, be them believers in the conspiracy or not, so it's unfair to use this as a tool in this debate. Best stick to WHAT happened, and let the historians take 300 years to figure out a semi-competent theoretical construction of what was going on in the world at that time that sorta explains the factors that determined why the attack (or 'attack', I have no opinion) happened. There is no single-minded, determined, human will behind ANYTHING in history. It's all little ants doing little things all at once.

QuoteThe towers just seem to slide into the earth

seem. There's such a thing called the untrained eye? Many things seem to be behaving in an unexpected way. This is not evidence. This is a demand. "This MUST have happened like that because it looked like that to me!" Learn the difference and stick to giving links to what more informed people than you have said on the topic, in far less assured tone. The ease with which you chat for the minority opinion on something so mind-numbingly complex as a plane hitting a tall building is shocking me. It's like I'm looking at two teenagers discussing dna-splicing or quantum mechanics, over coke and pizza, in the most reassured tone possible.

QuoteI don't have any doubts about it myself.

Why? Because it seemed like we did?

QuoteWhere I stand today is a far cry from the "We just need to support our president no matter what" stance I used to hold.

Great. And that a terrorist attack might have occured in your country absolutely did not and does not mean you have to believe everything your president told you. The point is: Bush is a bad president, your whole govermental system is corrupt and in no relation to the will of the common people besides the superficialities of choosing your king for the next 4 years, and that's something you should be devoting much more effort into than trying to knee-jerk yourself in a paranoid position over who did the terrorist strike.

Helm RE: "Why"

The thing behind why I aks why is... People who believe in these conspiracy theories seem to be able to think up [not actually discover, but imagine]a reason for everything and I find the more you ask a conspiracy theorist "But why, explain that more..." the more far fetched their explinations get and the more... I guess... Ammo you have against them. Like how Raggit seems to believe that you can keep hundreds of people quiet over something as huge as this by just paying them enough money or black mailing them. People have ratted on the Mafia countless times throughout history where they KNOW they'd die if the cops they told were on the take or if the mafia ever found them and they still did it. I can't remember his name and it's killing me but a man just confessed to tons of illegal activities related to washington and paying people off, he was 70 something years old and he'll go to jail for the rest of his life, he lost all his money and property and he has a wife and children. He said it was the right thing to do. Washington can't even keep private emails private how can they keep 100% of the people in on this deal quiet?

Then again the other problem with asking conspiracy theorists questions is that after a while I guess they stop answering you. Since Raggit skipped my questions all together... Oh well.

I don't mean to ask "why did 9/11 happen" I mean to ask "Why would you believe that?" Sure something like war is a bunch of little cells of people all doing things that eventually adds up. But a mass coverup of the Bush administration either allowing 4 terrorist strikes in 1 day or actually placing bombs in the WTC and helping to destroy it... That is not something where you can say "It's just people existing that caused this to happen." In my opinion.

I see how you use the 'why' thing, you've done it before in similar situations. I agree a cover-up of this magnitude seems not exactly probable at all. My uninformed opinion is that the terrorist attack happened with no knowledge or at least not full wide-spread knowledge in the US administration beforehand, but was, and is still exploited by the current administration very expertly and as much as possible at all times.

I can picture a high-ranking official (or more than one) in the whitehouse receiving a phone-call 24 hours beforehand and getting the news of what will happen and then just saying 'ok' and putting the phone down, calculating the possible benefits. I can see that. I can't see Bush discussing it with his think tank around beers and pretzels and going 'tomorrow 10,000 americans die lol! We're totally going to use this good, but uh, guys, keep it on the lowdown, ok?'

Mr. Colossal, what questions did I skip?

I'm not sure how I feel about being labeled a conspiracy theorist.Ã,  Is anybody who doubts anything automatically a conspiracy theorist?Ã, 

Anyway, maybe this is my fault, for not making this clear, but just incase I didn't mention this before: I don't automatically ASSUME that the events of 9/11 were DEFINATELY a hoax committed by the government just to create a pass key for whatever ambitions they had.Ã,  I just think that since this is such a massive and complex event, with so many unanswered questions, it should be scrutinized from all angles.

There are numerous holes in the current conspiracy theories circulating about 9/11, and I try to be equally critical about those as I am the official story.

However, I also see numerous holes in the official explanation for 9/11 as well.

This is one of those things that we may never know exactly what happened.Ã,  Possibly, only our great, great grandchildren will know for certain!Ã, 

I myself have no problem believing that our government would kill thousands (even Americans) if they thought they could benefit.Ã,  I mean, look at the war in Iraq!Ã,  They've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and over 2300 American troops, but they don't care, as long as there is still oil to be harvested.

Given the name "911 planed by US government," I thought this would be an open discussion, but I can see that folks are very skittish of the idea that 9/11 wasn't what it looked like, and what the media and government IMMEDIATELY started saying it was.

EDIT:

By the way, in regards to what Helm said about being overly assured in my mannerism, I guess I should apologize for that, too.  Personally, I didn't think I was in acting in such a way, but if I was, sorry.

Don't catastrophes usually get immediate coverage?

Is that your argument against the official explanation?

When I see a plane smack into a building, I don't assume it's the government trying to fuck its citizens. Because of this, your theory is the alternative hypothesis not the null.

Skiddish is not an apt word. It will take more than hunches and circumstancial evidence to convince me of a secret conspiracy against innocent civilians.

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=26472.msg334830#msg334830

You skipped that entire post.

Did Lee Harvey Oswald work alone?

The reason I bring these other theories up [The moon being the first] is because if you really learn both sides it's pretty painfully obvious which one is a crack pot theory and which isn't. People believe that everyone at NASA was in on the hoaxed moon landing, or at least thousands of people were tricked into believing they were actually working on a spaceship. People also believe that there is a huge conspiracy behind JFK being shot and really Olive Stone is the reason people still believe this.

If you can give me a plausible reason behind why hundreds of people would keep quiet about a 9/11 cover up, then we'll be getting somewhere. Black mail and payoffs don't really cut it in my opinion since I can use that as a reason for everything.

"The reason no one has come forward about how the moon landing was faked is because everyone was either blackmailed or paid for!"

"The reason no one has come forward about how JFK was assassinated by the US government is because everyone was either black mailed or paid for!"

"The reason no one has come forward about how the Masons run the world and have run the world for hundreds of years is because everyone was either black mailed or paid for!"

I'm not skittish about 9/11. It just seems like you're picking your language to convince yourself even though you say you aren't convinced either way. The government and media make up a lot more than Fox news and the Bush administration, believing reporters and authors and people who know what they're talking about isn't the same as nodding your head with glazed over eyes whenever you hear George Bush say "Let's roll!".

"I thought this would be an open discussion"

How is this not an open discussion? Is there someone here trying to prevent you from speaking?

Quote from: big brother on Mon 08/05/2006 17:03:50
When I see a plane smack into a building, I don't assume it's the government trying to fuck its citizens. Because of this, your theory is the alternative hypothesis not the null.

The fact that the airplane hit the twin towers is undeniable. There's footage of it. People were there.

The argument is that the building collapsed much too like the collapses of buildings when demolished with carefully set up explosives. However, they say that it was because of the fire that the building collapsed this way, which makes sense because of the jet fuel burning from the plane. (also if you watch the videos you can see the fire spreading really fast)

However the interesting thing with the Pentagon crash is that there is no footage of a plane hitting it. At least in the footage shown, you can not see a single trace of an airplane. Also, an airplane that low to the ground to hit the first story of the building (by the way, the pilot would have to be very well-trained to do something like this) would be extremely loud. Witnesses heard no such noise.

Anyway, I don't know what all this could mean. You have to think "why?" It's a pretty elaborate plan just to try to justify a war with Iraq... so I'm not sure what's going on.

I'm not going to get drawn into this debate, but I'll post my 2 cents.

I saw this movie a while ago, a few of my friends pointed it out and wholeheartedly beleived it. I watched it and barely beleived any of it. Sure, it raises some interesting points but at the end of the day it does just seem like opinion. It's hard to take something seriously with a voice like that presenter :P

To be fair - I don't want to beleive it's a Government set up. That would just be wrong. It would take away all the focus from Bin Laden, who I'm fairly sure is a terrorist. Bush isn't clever, but that doesn't make him dumb enough to destroy his own people. He seems pretty pro-American.

The Pentagon & Pensylvania crash are a real mystery to me still, those are the parts I beleived. But as for hidden explosions, missles on the plane then I thought that was bull. Also what was the deal with the video saying loads of the hijackers were still alive, as were the pilots of the crashed planes? That just fucked with my head.

It's funny how much of a teh debate this has bred! But I really do pity those who beleive it's true. If rule 1 of owning a television is; dont beleive everything you see - then rule 1 of the internet should be - don't trust everything you download! :P Certainly not Google video. Especially not when it's title uses Courier New font or similar.

The only thing that may sway my mind is getting hold of some original footage of the planes hitting. In Loose Change we see what they describe as "detonations" as the buildings collapse, but I never remember seeing them in the original footage.

Anyway, crazy video - annoyed it's fucked up so many peoples heads.

"However the interesting thing with the Pentagon crash is that there is no footage of a plane hitting it. At least in the footage shown, you can not see a single trace of an airplane. Also, an airplane that low to the ground to hit the first story of the building (by the way, the pilot would have to be very well-trained to do something like this) would be extremely loud. Witnesses heard no such noise."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

Quick google search shows some interesting stuff... Also, why should there be footage of the plane hitting the pentagon? How much footage is there of the first plane hitting the WTC building? I wouldn't say that's interesting at all. Is there any footage of the plane that crashed? Is that some how telling of there being something amiss?

Eric, sorry about missing that post.

Why not kill Valerie Wilson?
First of all, bear in mind that she was not directly connected with the scenario.  Her husband, Joe Wilson, was the one who determined that the Iraq couldn't have purchased uranium from Africa, and he was criticizing the administration's use of intelligence.  They tried to punish Joe Wilson by destroying his wife's career, and by the way, putting her mission and even her life in danger. 

So in one since, you could look at it as though they WERE trying to kill her by releasing her identity, but they were taking a safer route by just trying to put her in danger, and not actually have her blood directly on their hands.

As to the question, why not kill anybody and everybody who opposes the administration:  You answered your own question in the original post.  People WOULD notice. 
A lot of times, I think things can be kept secret just by controlling the media.

Actually, there IS footage of whatever happened to the impact.  It was confiscated immediately by the FBI.  I can think of at least three different videos that were confiscated.

1.)  Security camera footage from the gas station across the highway.

2.) The Sheraton hotel rooftop camera.  The employees actually managed to watch the tape, just before the FBI took it.  They were warned not to talk.

3.) The DOT cameras on the highway would've taped what happened, but it has never been released.

I suck at physics but I know what I know. Ã, 

I watched this tragedy from beginning to end live. Ã, I watched as people jumped from the towers because the flames were too hot and the alternative death seemed more inviting. Ã, I have heard 911 tapes of the victims as they knew they were going to die. Ã, 

As all this was happening, my brother was working a block from the whitehouse. radar picked up the plane in the DC area, my brother and everyone else in that area was told to run as fast as they could and as far as they could. Ã, Right after that is when the plane hit the pentagon. Ã, 

No there is no video of the plane hitting that building. Ã, Why would there be? Ã, Everyone's attention was towards NY. Ã, Should there have been a video crew at every signifigant building throughout the US just waiting for airplanes to hit them? Ã, I do know that not long after it hit, there was footage of the aftermath and it did look like a plane hit it. Ã, Same in Pennsylvania. Ã, 

We did not know whether my brother was dead or alive for two days. Ã, The only thing I agree with here is that Bush has used it to his advantage at every twist and turn. Ã, I don't believe for a second that he or our government had anything to do with it and I am betting most survivors agree.

These 911 conspiracy theories like the X-files movie. Supposedly FEMA (of Katrena fame :P) covered up the Aliens and has made a deal with them. Ã, :o ;D I agree with whoever (sorry too lazy ;)) said the fire doesn't have to hot enough to melt to cause trouble. (There's an understatement) they would weaken structural integrity. Ã, As well, when the B-1 bomber hit the empire sate building, it was 1) slower 2) smaller 3) the building was SUPER strong. The empire state building was built WAY stronger then needed, it had Many redundant support, which turned out to be not redundant. Modern buildings because of our "experience" with building skyscrapers are not.

Raggit, so they all of the suddenly don't want to kill someone not directly related to Iraq but they will let thousands of americans die, kill the economy and force thousands of americans out of jobs?

Not even I that disagree so much with Ã, this particular american governor can believe human beings can keep their mouth shut for something so "exciting" and that professionals and analysts that are so well trained would miss something so big, especially when their primary job is to keep an eye on those groups exactly. Don't forget the journalists. Or even people that wouldn't miss the godsent chance to train their financial/political opponent in the mud for lesser mistakes.

Maybe, maybe, some people in agencies, the government or the pentagon had heard about it and profited from it, but I can't believe it was coordinated. Politics is a lonely game. There are allies, not collegues; allies tend to change sides according to the wind's direction. You never trust your allies with secrets that serious.

I think it was a hit and a very well "exploited" one.

PS. About the missiles, the detonations etc. Could it be about defense? I mean, what were the army and other security corps doing during the hit? Drinking their cafe latte? I don't think so. Ã, I think the pentagon's mayhem and similar situatiyons were indications of defense.

Quote from: Raggit on Mon 08/05/2006 16:49:24
I'm not sure how I feel about being labeled a conspiracy theorist.  Is anybody who doubts anything automatically a conspiracy theorist? 

No, a conspiracy theorist is one who believes theories about (generally governmental) conspiracies, such as the theory that the US government conspired to create the 9/11 disaster. Generally such theories fall foul of Occam's Razor (and also, Hanlon's Razor) and discount or ignore plainly visible evidence to the contrary. For instance, I notice you've not responded to my and Big Brother's arguments about the laws of physics.

Do you know how many pages has the summary of the different trials around what happened 911?

My humble notions of laws tell me that around 40,000 pages per case. (And there must be something like 5 or 6 different causes investigated) That makes 200,000 or 240,000 pages. Imagine 1 page of each 1,000 has errors of minor contradictions. You have around 2,400 pages.

So, do you really think that this "tons of evidences" supporting the conspiration theory are something reliable? What happens with the other 23,7600.

wow don't bring Occam's razor in when discussing sociological effects! That hurts my brain!

You know thinking of 911 reminds of this little anecdote
You see me and some friends were playing "Perfect Dark" on N64, when we decided to make an "al-quada" level, we put the bots in trench coats and the shaggiest faces in the game, Ã, then we went around and shot the bots up,
weird huh?

Conspiracy: http://youtube.com/watch?v=U4WOXh8hbkI&search=911

I laugh at the fact that I cant find any videos that are non-conspiracy on YouTube. Well...Other than the ONE in Japanese.

EDIT: This is...I dont know. Funny I guess. http://youtube.com/watch?v=lmJXS3TiQ5s&search=911%20video

Well, it looks like this conspiracy theorist can shut up for a while now, as they've just released video footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

I haven't been able to watch it myself, I really don't want MP10 on my machine - but let me know what you think.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm

Plus if anyone can offer this footage as an AVI, WMV or any form of downloadable format - I'd really, really appreciate it.

all lies

Ahh well, that footage isn't spectacular.

It's funny, because I've already seen that "recently released footage" a few years back. It was leaked and was on the internet.

All you see is in one frame a little white streak. Of course that's a plane! ;)

Sorry to bump again, but thought the following recent News link fits in with this topic quite well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4990686.stm