Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

[cardero]

Faith in religion or faith in the government, I do not see a difference.

 

[greatcalgarian]

GreatCalgarian,

There is little to be gained by this kind of speculation. Ultimately, if the story is true, the brilliant perpetrators would have long since covered their tracks. Therefore it is unlikely that anything can really be proven. So, what? Do the Americans setup yet another commision to look into these charges? What if they meticulously research each point and arrive at the same conclusions that they already have? Would you be satisfied? Would you cry "RIGGED!"

The sad reality, my friend, is that this is meaningless hyperbole promulgated by a disenfranchaised few, who are never content with any explanation given to them.

I was the one responsible for killing the other thread. Yep, I got Kenny killed. No doubt you have theories on that too. I have since reevaluated my feelings though and have concluded that the best way to deal with this is to let you say your piece. You have every right to think what you must. It is my deep suspicion, that if folks read what you are saying you will succeed in winning a few converts, but I suspect that most folks will understand this line of thought, for what it is.

I sincerely hope it all works for you.

Kindly,
YmirGF

I did not start the other thread, neither did I start this thread. I am not saying the other conspiracy theories are the correct representation of the actual event happening in that way. It is just my curiousity to see how those arguements are analyzed in a scientific way, to prove or disprove those theories. Exactly like the case of Evolution and Creationism. To me, the current conspiracy theories have more substance and similar to evolution, whereas the Government's commission report is like creationism. That is my opinion currently because I do not get enough scientific and logical presentation from the US government on the 9/11.

You can kill this thread as well. As far as I am concern, so long as this RF claims 'freedom of Speech', as one poster claim US has and Canada did not have, I am perfectly happy to live with that, as I do not believe that there is actually such thing as 'Freedom of Speech' any where in this world including US.

If the reason for killing any discussion on 9/11 is better for the future of mankind, go ahead and kill them. And if we can all wiped clean the memory of this horrid event, so much the better. However, the truth might be worse than the lie, as far as I can see it currently.

 

[greatcalgarian]

I believe it's very likely that the Bush regime is lying to us about some aspect of what happened on 9/11, if only because it's always pretty likely the government is lying to us, and this bunch is even worse than average.

Some aspects of the official story seem a little off to me; for instance, I watched a program about the collapse of WTC-7, and what the experts were saying was basically, "Yeah, we were surprised, too. Maybe debris from the towers knocked the fireproofing off the steel in WTC-7 or something." And I'm sitting there, a non-expert, thinking "What the hell?"

The thing is, maybe that's a perfectly reasonable explanation, maybe it's not, but there's no way for the general public to judge.

They did address the issue of some of the debris being removed before a proper investigation was done, and how this was a necessary part of the rescue effort -- people were still alive in the debris of the towers. They also noted that it had been decided to allow WTC-7 to burn out of control all day, since it had already been evacuated, and it was considered (rightly, I think we'd all agree) more important to concentrate on rescue efforts.

By itself, the collapse of WTC-7 doesn't seem all that sinister. But you start putting all the mysteries and just plain weird stuff about 9/11 together, and it starts to seem like there is a lot the government isn't telling us.

My best guess is, in some cases the government doesn't know the answers, and in other cases they know but prefer not to share the information with us. I don't think it's at all likely that they planned the attacks. I do think it's almost certain they're withholding information from us. They always do.

This is the most sensible response on this thread. :clap Frubals to you.

Let the US Government says that, and I am perfectly happy with that. Withholding information because revealing those informations may cause a pandamic may be the actual case. Just admit that there were lots of things up till today that the Government is still not clear on how 9/11 could have happened, admit that the other side somehow infiltrated into the US intelligent network, (for example, my speculation is that the pepetrators must have known that the military is having a practice run on sept 11, and hence planned for the attack on that day, where the actual event will be confused up with the one supposedly to be a drill), then there will not be any more conspiracy theories.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Solve's points cannot be logically countered by ad hominum attacks, and dismissing disturbing ideas out-of-hand as ridiculous is plain ostrich-ism and courts disaster. Likewise, blind trust in the motivations and morality of a nation's leadership historically leads to wars and abuses.

It is the nature of government to grow, to arrogate power and capital and to extend influence. Given free reign government becomes oppressive and parasitic.

These tendencies were recognized by the US' founding fathers, who sought to protect protect the people from government. They set up a three-part system in which each part acted as a check on the power of the others. If one of these parts abandons its role and cedes power to another, there is a great danger that the empowered branch will begin to grow unchecked and become abusive, then oppressive and finally tyrannical.

This has happened many times throughout history and it can happen here.

It is the duty of every good citizen to distrust his government, to encourage dissent and to diligently investigate claims of abuse or impropriety.
Never dismiss the "outrageous alarums" of critics like Solve as absurd. History has shown time and again that we do so at our peril.

Excellently put. Frubals to you.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Check out this movie about the plane that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It will air Monday the 13th, on the "I" network or Independent Television Network, formerly Pax TV.

Click on the link for show times: Portrait of Courage: The Untold Story of Flight 93

Is there a web online that can be viewed via internet?

 

[greatcalgarian]

September 11, 2001, rigged? A conspiracy theory?

1) Why on earth would somebody come up with such a stupid idea? I think maybe because they were disenchaned with President George W. Bush and how he was doing. I've seem to notice that this country is more subdued when there is a Democrat in office, you want to know my opinion why? Democrats are pushovers in some things and let this countries morals be drug down the drain.

2) Why on earth would President Bush purposefully destroy two world-renowned buildings, part of the pentagon and a random field in Pennsylvania? Why? What would be the point? Oil? There are so many other ways he could get it and blaming this squarley on his shoulders makes you a *****. Seriously, there are many people to blame for this and they should all equally hold the blame, not just the leader of the country.

3) Thousands of people died. Have you not seen the videos where the plane crashed into the World Trade Centers? Whatever floats your boat though, if you want to believe that the world is one big conspiracy, go ahead, just don't try to convert me to your perverted and odd way of thinking.

Your three questions have been answered by the currently popular conspiracy theories:
http://web.mid-day.com/news/world/2005/september/118397.htm
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/FrontPage.shtml

Read more, my friend. Refer to all the other web links I provided in the previous posts.
Widen your knowledge in the event.

 

[Beautiful Midnight Kisses]

Your three questions have been answered by the currently popular conspiracy theories:
http://web.mid-day.com/news/world/2005/september/118397.htm
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/FrontPage.shtml

Read more, my friend. Refer to all the other web links I provided in the previous posts.
Widen your knowledge in the event.

Actually Mr Calgarian, these did not answer my questions in the least bit.

1) People who are prone to believe in conspiracy theories have something seriously wrong with them. Guillible is what you are.

2) Get over it, you don't live in the USA Mr. Calgarian, so you have nothing to worry about. You have your nice, open country there in Canada. If you are so worried why don't you find youself a nice little cave up in Nunavak?

3) President Bush will be out of the White House in 2008, we will probably have another self-serving Democrat in the White House, unforutnaley.

4) You could have done better in a situation like that, I'd like to see you try. It takes a strong man to run for President and to be President and to go through all the junk, harassments and what he goes through, give him a break.

5) So, let me guess, December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor was also planned by President Roosevelt, another Republican, because he wanted to go into World War II? Is that your view on Presidents of the USA?

6) I think President Bush is a good man, whose made a few mistakes, he's human, please treat him as one. You make mistakes also.

7) DO NOT patronize to me! Or treat me like a child. Widen my knowledge of the event. Bullcrap. I know quite a bit about it, and about the conspiracy theories which people are so desperate to believe because they would like to place the blame on someone in power, why they don't blame the terroists, I don't know.

 

[jeffrey]

And Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton were both Soviet spies. She almost blew his cover.

 

[Beautiful Midnight Kisses]

And Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton were both Soviet spies. She almost blew his cover.

I think you are quite right about that Jeffery.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

... 5) So, let me guess, December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor was also planned by President Roosevelt, another Republican, because he wanted to go into World War II? Is that your view on Presidents of the USA?...

Frubals to you for this post, but I have to point out that Franklin D Roosevelt who was President in 1941 was a Democrat. Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, was President from 1901-1909. There are a lot of idiotic conspiracy theories about FDR 'letting' the attack on Pearl Harbor happen. Considering the Japanese were making peace overtures in the time before the attack, these theories are just as stupid and the 9/11 ones.

 

[Beautiful Midnight Kisses]

I am so sorry about that. I have gotten my Franklins in a twist. Thank you very much Captain Xeroid for pointing that out. Frubals? I'm still not sure what those are, but thank you.

 

[Flappycat]

I heard him on the radio right after the atrocity. He sounded on the verge of tears at the time and was barely coherent. He's a dunce, not a pervert. I said this when I still defended his actions, I said it when I continued to defend his character, I said it when I felt he was merely acting on bad advice when he insulted me an irreversible way as he continues to do, and I say it even now that his blunders have led hundreds of thousands to their deaths. I tired long ago of defending him in any way, but my inclination to detest him is still limited to detesting him for his ignorance. He's repeatedly disappointed me, but I think that the source of that disappointment has remained the same. There is still room, in my eyes, for him to be a well-meaning fool, though he is wearing on this last bit of forgiveness I have for him.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

I am so sorry about that. I have gotten my Franklins in a twist. Thank you very much Captain Xeroid for pointing that out. Frubals? I'm still not sure what those are, but thank you.

I try to be helpful. Here's a thread about Frubals with some more details.

 

[YmirGF]

I was wrong to report the first thread.

I simply am not a conspiracy plot fan. Never have been, never will be. I am a die hard skeptic and doubt I will ever change that tune.
I sent a followup PM to the admins expressing the thought that the first thread should be left open. Since it remains closed, I assume they agreed with my justifiable outrage.

I was completely surprised by my reaction to the long film. The short clip did not impress me in the least, and mentally landed under Scrapheap labelled "Yeah, whatever." The long one just hit my buttons, and I in turn, hit the roof. I did not find a single solitary argument presented as compelling enough to warrant further investigation. I am FAR more curious about the filmaker's motivation.

Many of you have written very thoughtful responses to this thread and I respect and agree with much of what you all have to say. Seynori, I agree wholeheartedly 98.3224% of the time. When conjecture amounts to unsubstantiated theoretical speculation, then I feel it is indeed time to disregard.

So, on that note dear GreatCalgarian, have at 'er. I won't stand in your way. Trumpet your viewpoints, lest anyone remain unclear.

 

[greatcalgarian]

I was wrong to report the first thread.

I simply am not a conspiracy plot fan. Never have been, never will be. I am a die hard skeptic and doubt I will ever change that tune.
I sent a followup PM to the admins expressing the thought that the first thread should be left open. Since it remains closed, I assume they agreed with my justifiable outrage.

I was completely surprised by my reaction to the long film. The short clip did not impress me in the least, and mentally landed under Scrapheap labelled "Yeah, whatever." The long one just hit my buttons, and I in turn, hit the roof. I did not find a single solitary argument presented as compelling enough to warrant further investigation. I am FAR more curious about the filmaker's motivation.

Many of you have written very thoughtful responses to this thread and I respect and agree with much of what you all have to say. Seynori, I agree wholeheartedly 98.3224% of the time. When conjecture amounts to unsubstantiated theoretical speculation, then I feel it is indeed time to disregard.

So, on that note dear GreatCalgarian, have at 'er. I won't stand in your way. Trumpet your viewpoints, lest anyone remain unclear.

Thanks.

Chinese saying : 真金不怕火
If the movie is a lot of crab, and has no substance, or is simply trying to instill hatred to the republican, or is fabricated to cause confusion among the Americans, or is targetted to defend the terrorists, it will not stand the test of time, and the truth will eventually prevail. However, if there is something else important that we can learn from that movie so as to prevent future happening, everyone should look at that movie with a clear and logical and scientific mind to dig out the truth and find the best solution to prevent another similar 9/11 from occurring.

Let me repeat, I did not post any of these two threads on 9/11. I am just trying to point out there are room left for clear minded people to question the truth of what the government of US has told the world and her citizen so far. We should not sweep dirt under the carpet, and fool ourselves that 9/11 is over, and with tighter airport security, with occupying of Iran and Iraq, with the many successful killing of the al-Qaeda operative, the world is safer, and by continueing with the direction GWB is leading us, the world will be free from terrorists in the near future, and there will not be any more possibility of 9/11 from occurring. We are fooling ourselves, if we believe that.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Actually Mr Calgarian, these did not answer my questions in the least bit.

1) People who are prone to believe in conspiracy theories have something seriously wrong with them. Guillible is what you are.

2) Get over it, you don't live in the USA Mr. Calgarian, so you have nothing to worry about. You have your nice, open country there in Canada. If you are so worried why don't you find youself a nice little cave up in Nunavak?

3) President Bush will be out of the White House in 2008, we will probably have another self-serving Democrat in the White House, unforutnaley.

4) You could have done better in a situation like that, I'd like to see you try. It takes a strong man to run for President and to be President and to go through all the junk, harassments and what he goes through, give him a break.

5) So, let me guess, December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor was also planned by President Roosevelt, another Republican, because he wanted to go into World War II? Is that your view on Presidents of the USA?

6) I think President Bush is a good man, whose made a few mistakes, he's human, please treat him as one. You make mistakes also.

7) DO NOT patronize to me! Or treat me like a child. Widen my knowledge of the event. Bullcrap. I know quite a bit about it, and about the conspiracy theories which people are so desperate to believe because they would like to place the blame on someone in power, why they don't blame the terroists, I don't know.

If you tell me that you have read through all the pages in those web link I provided, so be it. The last thing I want to do is to patronize anyone in this RF.

 

[FFH]

We can't forget about Roswell, New Mexico. I know where they are hiding those spaceships and dead aliens.

 

[FFH]

You know it is funny how they show World Trade Center 7 coming down when everyone knows that it was purposly brought down weeks after the attack on World Trade Center 1 and 2. There is a perfect shot of World Trade Center 7 coming down, and guess why ??? because they purposly brought it down because it had become unsafe. It was not safe to try to reconstruct or restore. They brought it down with explosives, days or weeks after the attack because it had become unstable and therefore was not safe to leave standing because it could collapse at any moment.

 

[FFH]

It's also funny how the size of the hole in the Pentagon changes depending on which shot they are using, and what they are talking about. The hole seems to get smaller then bigger then smaller again. After you have seen one of these types of films you have pretty much seen them all. The narrators are the most irritating part of these films. Oh, and the cheesy music.

 

[Tannenisis]

You know it is funny how they show World Trade Center 7 coming down when everyone knows that it was purposly brought down weeks after the attack on World Trade Center 1 and 2. There is a perfect shot of World Trade Center 7 coming down, and guess why ??? because they purposly brought it down because it had become unsafe. It was not safe to try to reconstruct or restore. They brought it down with explosives, days or weeks after the attack because it had become unstable and therefore was not safe to leave standing because it could collapse at any moment.

This is not true. Although your post is not asking for information, I will respond with my own experience to the theories put forth by some on this thead.
My husband and I worked in WTC5 up until it was destroyed on 9/11. The tragedy displaced 125 workers at my company- Borders- including us.
My brother-in-law is a court officer who dug for survivors as did many of my coworkers in the aftermath. I state this so that you can know I'm not just talking out of my ***.

Having said that:
WTC7 came down the same day as the towers did. So did WTC 3, which conspiracy theories NEVER mention. I suppose that building isn't controversial enough because it was a Marriot Hotel.
If WTC7 was a controlled demolition by the authorties at the scene, it was pretty damn sloppy. It didn't fall straight down, but on a slant. The collaspe damaged (next to it) 140 West Street (The Verizon building) with about 5 stories of rubble, causing flooding in its basement and structual damage. 30 West Broadway, located behind WTC 7, also suffered significant damage that the building was deemed a total loss. It was a part of the City University of New York (CUNY) system. It's formal name was Fiterman Hall. Demolition had been delayed until last year because the building needed to be severely decomtaminated (as did several others) to avoid severe health hazards (like absestos and lead, among things). The post office on the corner of Church and Vessey street received some damage as well, although pretty minor.
How many professional demolition companies are going to bring down a building in such a way as to damage an additional three surrounding it so that they will take millions to repair or will have to be demolished themselves?

WTC 5 and 6 (whose structures partially collasped) were demolished on the Friday morning after the tragedy. WTC 4 also sustained a partial collaspe and demolished before the week was out as well.

Other facts the conspiracy sites fail to mention:
1) WTC 7 was connected at its base by a landbridge over Vessey Street that conjoined to WTC 5, 6 and one of the towers. No other buildings on Vessey Street were directly connected to the Tower structures in this manner. I walked across it once a week.

2) WTC 7 was connected underground to the World Trade Center Mall, which had several levels that descended into transit tunnels underneath. The World Trade Center itself was a hub stop on the NJ transit line as well as other subway lines, all of which sustained damaged after the towers fell. This is not compact ground that WTC 7 was standing on; it was very hallow ground for several stories. The structural impact of the collaspes went down approx. 70 meters from understanding.

3) WTC 7 was evacuated. Fires broked out in the base floors and spread upwards after the collaspe. People underestimate the loss of life when the towers fell. Whole departments of fire fighters and police officers were killed instanteously. The decision was made to make no attempt to salvage WTC 7 because they didn't want to lose any more men. I assure you that just prior to WTC7 collasping the fires were raging out of control on all floors.

4) People make the assertion that the fires at Ground Zero were ordinary fires. There were not. These fires burned until December, fed by the electrical and gas lines underground as well as by the material themselves.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634

People ask: how can a regular fire cause WTC 7 to collaspe? My response is that for one thing, WTC 7 suffered structural damage. Secondly, ordinary fires do not burn for months after a building collaspes, even with the area not being flooded for some weeks due to the rescue effort. So the attempt at these "experts" to claim that what happened at Ground Zero is "just an ordinary fire in human history" is complete B.S. I don't care how many degrees they have.

3) Witnesses at the scene (including a large number of my coworkers) detail several explosive sounds prior to the collaspe, which were in fact the levels surrounding the plane impacts caving in on the Towers. They state that the impact points "crumpled in on themselves." This is collaborated by many, many statements from police, firefighters and pedestrians at the time. Also by one of my friends who videotaped the entire collaspe of both buildings on her palmcorder; on each of the roofs of the towers there were approx. 40-60 people waiting for helicopters that perished in that collaspe. My friend watched and recorded all of this. No demolition explosions were present.

4) Having worked there, there is no way that any of this was a controlled demolition. For one thing, controlled demolition requires large detonation charges which could not be hidden anywhere within these buildings, especially not floor by floor. Someone would notice them as they are usually large packages wrapped in black plastic. Other explosives like C4, ect. are very sensitive and would have detonated upon the impact of the planes themselves.

It is also quite redundant to take the trouble of hijacking planes if you are blowing the building anyway. Also what are the odds of flying said planes into the Towers in such a PRECISE manner that the pilots didn't manage to detonate the charges that were supposedly placed there before hand?

5) There are other theories about missles being shot from the planes into the towers prior to their impact. Also bunk as my husband was standing on the street when the second plane hit along with my coworkers and witnessed no such thing.

6) Bombs around the base of the towers or in the basement: also bunk as my husband worked on the concourse level underneath the WTC structure itself. So did many others. They would all be dead right now.

7) Removal of the steel at the scene: This was done because of the rescue effort and also because the tons and tons of rubble at the site were compounding the tunnels underground. Several of them, including the NJ transit tunnel sustained alot of damage, such as flooding. The additional weight was causing problems.

Now the destruction and disposal of said steel before it was properly analyzed is another story.

I'm sure there are other things that I am overlooking that can be easily debunked as well.
Now after all this, I can state that I believe our government is not being fully honest with us about the events of 9/11. There are glaring omissions of protocol in the official explanation. Of course they wouldn't be fully honest with us; there are many aspects of the tragedy that are classified at this time. It usuallly takes a few decades for documents to be declassfied to the extent that the public can get a more comprehensive picture of what took place. Such has been the case with events like the Cuban Missle Crisis or Pearl Harbor.
Secondly, the stalling of formation and actions of the 9/11 commission and the current failure to implement its suggestions are highly suspect to me. So is the fact that many that testified before the commission did not do so under oath. Nor did our president testify alone. Bush testified jointly with Cheney. This is a very unusual occurance. These are but a few of the problems that I have with the 9/11 story, none of which include wild conspiracy theories, but actual fact.


My two cents,
Tannenisis