<br><br><IMG SRC="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/conspiracy_theories.png">

That last cell in the comic is hysterical.
(is it my software background?)

More stuff to ponder... for those not blinded by politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJejiP_47tQ

It's taken from the news, this stuff was all documented as happening that day. Can you think of a good reason for office workers looking for debris? Somebody lose a contact lense or what?

Here's another curiosity.. considering where i saw it posted.

http://www.markbingham.org/links.html

Go where it says... "CLICK HERE FOR LATEST NEWS ON MARK TODAY! 05-17-2007"

Takes you to this...
http://www.etherzone.com/2007/stang051807.shtml

Which when you read it doesn't exactly compliment their version of events.

That and the Todd Beamer site do have some interesting bits.

http://www.markbingham.org/legend.html
http://www.perpetuallyonline.com/ToddBeamer/article.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb2U...t495368%2Ehtml

German hip hop about 9/11 :)

Here are some beams from the WTC rubble. There was no reason for cleanup crews to do this kind of cut unless they wanted the beam to come down on their heads.
That kind of cut is made with a linear shaped charge, and it is used in demolitions, it makes the top part slide over the bottom part and the building falls :
http://www.abbaswatchman.com/wtc_core_cutter2.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ns_charges.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...c_anglecut.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...c_columns2.jpg


Mystery solved.
The only way to find out the truth is to find some clean up people and ask them about those beams

Awesome pictures, pai. Those are going to be hard to deny by even the most devoted non-theorist.

Pai mei - there's a very good reason to make those cuts. Those beams were standing vertically in the rubble. The only way to bring them down in a controlled fashion is to make that kind of cut, working down the angle from top to bottom. It keeps the weight of the beam from pinching the cutting tool.

Anyone who's ever had any experience cutting down verticle weights will tell you the exact same thing. It's the most efficient way, and it is actually the BEST way to make sure the load DOESN'T come down on your (or anyone else's) head. A horizontal cut is unstable and damages your equipment.

Take a look at the second to the last picture, there's nothing around them that matches with the cuts.

Believe me, after researching 9/11, I do think it was an inside job, but those cuts don't really prove much as presented in my opinion. They very well could be explosive charges, but they very well could be cut like that during clean up too. When you cut down trees you angle them like that so they fall in a certain direction. It's hard to say without more evidence. It does look highly suspicious though.

will, there's a crane in the background. Steel beams are heavy. No ancient Egyptian slaves were present at the WTC site to use ramps, ropes and water to move the cut beams after they'd been put down, so I think it's a pretty easy guess that they were lifted by a crane and placed on a truck prior to this picture being taken. Unless you have proof the contrary that you haven't offered up to now.

Otherwise it's just three beams cut at an angle to bring them out the site without ruining the tools being used.

I would like to see a person who worked to remove the rubble give an interview and tell everything he saw

In my country the minister for foreign affairs had to resign because he failed to tell the public in time when some journalists were taken hostage in Iraq, they were rescued , but he still lost his post just for not telling in time.

In Japan the minister of transportation resigned because a few trains were a few minutes late. No dead people, but he resigned.

9/11 was not the first time planes went of the course. There are written manuals with instructions for what to do in that case.
If the reason for 9/11 was incompetence tell me who was fired ?
3000 dead and not 1 (one) incompetent fired ?
Not killed or in prison, just fired

Exactly! Kids soccer coaches, waiters and parking valets lose their jobs for some pretty minor things. The grossly negligent 9/11 players get PROMOTED.

Half of the Pentagon staff should have been fired.

Lotsa BS from this government agency, incompetent evidence gathering of steel, shoddy staffing and investigative effort, delays...delays....and as the sixth anniversary of 9/11 rolls around, there will be no definitive "WTC 7 collapse report"....YET...from NIST !

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=171

"When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, <h3>it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation.</h3> After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, <h3>the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7</h3> and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007."


http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=175
Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire
Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. <h3>Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7</h3>, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...tc_062907.html
NIST Status Update on World Trade Center 7 Investigation


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 29, 2007

.....A team of scientists and engineers at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that is investigating the collapse of New York City's World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) building expects to release its draft report for public comment by the end of the year.......This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.
NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse.
While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements......

http://www.ae911truth.org/
Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

126 architectural and engineering professionals and
190 "Others" including A/E Students
have joined us in calling on Congress for a new investigation.
Everyone may join AE911Truth.org!
We have several categories of folks that are concerned about the events of 9/11.
We will post your name after verifying your credentials and/or
information — which may take a few days.
Thank You!!

Mission Statement:

To research and to disseminate the truth
of the 9/11 “collapses” of all 3 WTC high-rise buildings
to every architect and engineer

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...87186956&hl=en
A firefighter tells the story of what he did on 9/11.

"Tower one was coming down from the interior on us"
"Inside structure was just disintegrating, we were like : How is this happening when the plane was up fifty more stories and the stairway is collapsing on us ?"
"Explosions , fires everywhere "
"It wasn't a F14 shooting rockets at us"
"We got down to the third floor and that's where the stairway collapsed on us
and we had to dig all the way out, now the building is coming down we can't see nothing, once again, saying our prayers, you know the show is over here now, this is it.
And with that, all of the sudden, we're looking for another stairwell, me and the lieutenant open a door, we find a body in this closet, we were like : what the heck is that, where did this come from, what's going on here ?, something crazy is going on.
We got our way out off the third stall and that's where the maintenance fellow with a little flash light saved our lives , he was pointing over at us , if it wasn't for him we never would have found another stairwell, the building would have collapsed, William Rodriguez, he saved our lives"
"People coming down the stairs from all different stories , burnt"
"We got down to the lobby and everything was blown up, exploded"



Of course no eye witness testified for the 9/11 "investigation".

The firefighters (pronounced foy foytas) were saying things like that on live TV back when it happened but what do they know... they aren't politicians.

For anybody to agree with the official fable they need to ignore a lot of the truth and just accept small bits of it and insert theory where facts aren't known. Much smaller scandals have toppled governments before.

Watching "9/11 Conspiracies" on History Channel. This is the most one sided piece of tripe in history. It weakly echos talking points and presents virtually no evidence whatsoever. This is probably the weakest case for the official story yet. They missed the point:

How did this:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/sozen.pentagon_1.jpg

fit into this?
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagonhole.jpg

Some have said that the plane basically atomized upon impact. Um, no. Some say the wings tail, and body folded in. Um, no. Some say it was just an amazing coincidence that it hit the exact center of where the restoration was happening thus meaning that part of the Pentagon would be virtually abandoned. Um, no.

Let's stop pretending like the Occam's Razor for the big picture negates the Occam's Razor for the individual pices of evidence.

Two questions for 9/11 conspiracy people...

1) If the government is capaple of orchestrating 9/11 and keeping it a secret, why was Bill Clinton unable to keep a simple blowjob from Monica Lewisnski a secret?

2) If the Bush administration were logistically and morally capable of of orchestrating 9/11 and keeping it a secret, then why did they not plant a huge stash of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq (along with some arabic-language plans to atack the US) in order to justify the Iraq invasion?

well it's pretty simple, but let me use some other pictures to prove my point.

garage door
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...thetiq/6-1.jpg

big fire truck
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...RE20TRUCK3.jpg

big fire truck inside passing through the garage door
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...adderTruck.jpg

people have posted sillohettes of the plane before and they easily fit within the measurements of the hole.

Either you're trying to say that a plane's wings, tail, and even the hull can fold into a shape no more than 15 feet in diameter, or you're flaming. I'm disappointed no matter which of these two describes your last post.

no i'm not even claiming that the rest of the items made it inside the hole.

showing a lengthwise photo inquiring how it fits into a smaller whole is disingenious at best to this conversation.

From no angle, even spinning, can a 757 fit into a 15' diameter hole. That's the point. The picture in profile is intended to show the tail and the size of the fuselage, neither of which can fit in the hole produced by the projectile that hit the Pentagon.

Flaming? Hardly. He's debating the point.

Wings aren't designed to stay attached to a plane if it crashes into a concrete building. I EXPECT that they would fold back and follow through the hole made by the main body of the plane.

Except there are no hinges on the wings of most commercial planes. In order for what you say to be true, in the fraction of a second that the plane hits the building, the 124' wingspan folded into the plane. They didn't explode because they were full of fuel. They didn't even make a scratch, they folded so quickly.

I don't get how that's intellectually insulting. I don't understand how people can assume the wings folded into the fuselage somehow, despite the fact that it's almost impossible. And when I say almost impossible, I mean like it's almost impossible that I can lay an egg.

The tail and wings would have shattered upon impact on the heavy concrete building, and yes, there were peices of airplane scattered across the site. The main mass of the plane was in the fusalauge, that that was enough to punch relatively smaller hole into the building.

BTW, I watched the History channel documentary. The hole in the 3rd ring contraticts the cruise missle theory. If missle exploded upon impact on the outer ring, then what could have created the hole in the third ring?

And what about all the people near the Pentagon who saw a plane, not a missle?

BTW, please answer my previous questions about Monica Lewinski and the lack of planted WMD in Iraq.

really need to check into reality based facts as opposed to your conjecture:

I'm going to try to refrain from sounding like someone beligerent asking how to get 2 6" sections from 1 8" plank, but I feel no matter how I shape the next parts it will be taken as such.

I've not done the due diligence, but since you question "can a 757 fit into a 15' diameter hole?" On its face the answer is yes, 12"6" is less than 15".

As for the wings folding, too many Transformer movies or something. There was plenty of debris in front of the Pentagon, if I recall, photos of at least 1 engine.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...s/q0110c.shtml

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...7_schem_02.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...tiq/montf4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...q/pic64471.jpg
note this crash in NJ was a low speed crash into a brick building. Brick is notoriously not good as a defense against high speed impacts or even siesmic activity.

I didn't make myself clear enough, I guess. Assuming the wings folded into the plane, somehow, the plane still would have been wider than 15'. The 12 or so feet plus the wings would have still made it wider.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pentagon&plane.jpeg
According to all reports, the first impact would have been the nose cone impacting where you can later see a hole I'm estimating is less than 15', but that's been described as little as 10' wide. I can't be sure because of photographic evidence not giving exact scale. The second impact would have been the right wing (from the back) into the second story window on the far right in the image. That impact left NO damage. As a matter of fact, the areas where the wings and tail would have impacted show absolutely no evidence of damage whatsoever. Not only that, but I've yet to see any evidence that there was more than maybe a handful of debris on the front lawn in front of the impact. If you've got a picture or video I've not seen, I'd love to see it.

The wings and tail didn't leave any evidence of impact, despite the suggestion that the boeing 757-200 struck the building at 500 mph. The engines didn't even leave holes, despite there being an engine found at the opposite end of the crash site from the impact.

It looks like in your illustration that there IS chipping damage where the wings & tail impacted. Keep in mind that the building was heavy concrete and planes, especial the tail & wings, are made of lightweight materials. Most of the mass of a plane is in the fuselaugh, and all the weight impacting in a 12-15' (or whatever) area was enough to punch a hole in the building.

This contrasts with the WTC impacts. The outer walls of the WTC towers were mostly glass and light framwork to stableize the floors. The wight-bearing structure was all near the middle of the towers. That's why the towers had plane-shaped holes in them.

We must not be looking at the same image.
Even heavy concrete chips.

and you can tell that there are no chips, from a photo taken from many many feet away???? some good eyes you have there to see them that other cannot see.

That's why I posted such a large image. You can look closely. Here's another:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...e-hte-def1.jpg

Look at the texture of the building where the wings would have hit. It is not pristine like the area on the far right of the image near the tree. If not the wings, what caused that damage?

even at the distance of this shot will, the chips you are expecting to see would be feet in size... not chips but actually damage.

Other Questions:

If the WTC Towers were rigged with explosives, then why did the impact of the planes and subsequent fires not set off the explosives, causing an immediate collapse?

I see no damage whatsoever. The picture I just posted has a clearer shot of the area in question. There is no visable damage around the last window on the second floor.

Under the hypothetical situation in which the whole thing was planned, it would stand to reason that the area where the planes crashed would be predetermined. If that were the case, I suspect that any planners involved in the demolition would have left the floors at and around the impact free of explosives.

You're assuming that the red line ends exactly where the wing would have hit.
There's visible damage the next window over and even more two widows over, and below.

So the pilots were accurate enough to know exactly which floor they were flying into? Can you look at 100 story building (while flying at it at 500 mph) and know exactly there the 72nd floor is?

Also, in the video footage, the both of the collapses clearly begin in the impact zones, where intense fires had been burning since the impacts.

I'm afraid that the idea that the jet-fule fires weakened the support structures of the buildings (which were already damaged by the impact) untill they could no longer supprt the weight above them is a much more plausable explanation of why they fell.

The red line isn't arbitrary. It's based specifically on the location of the hole, assuming that was where the fuselage contacted the building.
I'm not here to prove something, I'm here to disprove something. It makes no sense to present alternate theories when it's apparently not yet established that the official story is incorrect.

Some theories state, with some evidence, that the planes were not piloted from the cockpit by pilots. That would explain how the planes were able to strike a specific place. But again, that's not really relevant until the official theory is disproven. I hope that's clear.

I don't want to put my cart before my horse.

The History channel documentary mentioned that the wing struck a truck parked nearby before the plane hit the building. The large photo you posted shows a large truck engulfed in flames. If the impact with the truck pulverized the last several feet of the wing (the truck looks heavy but a plane wing is light, although it contains fuel which would have drenched the truck on impact), that would explain why the damage to the building to the right of the hole doesn't extend as far as one might expect.

What drives me nuts about this thread is that we can't keep to one issue at a time. As soon as we start rolling on one issue sombody throws in another.

To continue on the pentagon
willravel, I took the image that you posted and circled a couple of areas where the wings might have hit based on the red lines and you do see some damage.
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/8153/example1wm6.jpg

Photos from around the pentagon showing what looks like debris from a plane.
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html (posted earlier in the thread)

The truck was burned but not struck.

Sticky, the white stuff was just fire suppressant compound, though there could be damage under that which we can't see.

I am not referring to the white stuff.
I tried to circle the areas that I was talking about as best I could with MSPaint.
- On the left side it is that area just to the left of where the white/grey section ends on the lover level.
- On the right side there is a small section that is outside (to the right) the white/greay area where their is damaged

Oh no, not the dreaded pulver again. Look , stuff just doesn't disappear like that. Even the logs in your campfire will leave behind some evidence. Drop an egg and there will be shell fragments and yolk... etc.

It is a wild theory to suggest wings folded back and went through a hole and then disappeared. Far wilder a theory than suggesting evil White House villains running remote control planes and setting explosives in buildings.

Of course the wings didn't fold up and pass through the hole.

They shattered against the wall of the Pentagon and the pieces scattered in the nearby area.

Here are some pictures:
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

The wings shattered? The wings, full of fuel that was exploding, shattered?

And did the engines shatter as well?

This page on rense.com (not exactly a mouthpiece of the establishment on the Internet) shows one of the engines inside the building. Your image seems to show a hole in the building where an engine would have impacted, although it's hard to tell because there was a lot of smoke & fire redardant when the image was made, and the section soon collapsed.

http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

To be more precise, yes the wings would have shattered, splattering instantly-igniting aviationc fuel all over the place.

Your large image also seems to she a lot of debris in the impact area. The other page I linked to shows debris on the nearby grass, right where shattered peices not heavy enough to penetrate concrete would have been deflected to.

i’d like to take this opportunity to plunge even further into the rabbit hole and offer the opinion that the “cruise missile hit the pentagon” theory is deliberate information designed to readily discredit anyone who questions the official narrative of 9/11. there’s plenty of reason to doubt the bush administration’s story about 9/11 without getting bogged down in technical engineering questions like what happens when a jet engine slams against a several-foot-thick concrete wall (the only honest answer anyone other than a certified structural engineer can give is, ‘i have no idea’) or what the melting point of reinforced steel is (ditto). i think it’s much more apropos to wonder what the hell the hijackers were doing training at US military bases, why the (still unsolved) anthrax attacks were traced to another military base, what was with that story about a bunch of the 9/11 hijackers turning up alive in various parts of the world, how they were able to find one of the hijackers’ passports after it had been through a fireball and fallen into 1.6 million tons of rubble...

the whole story about 9/11 has stunk to high heaven from day one but i think the cruise missile thing is a distraction. it reminds me a little of the abu ghraib thing -- i argue with conservative friends and they are able to present the abu ghraib fiasco as a “fraternity prank”. why? because of that one photo where they put panties on someone’s head. if you want to support what went on in abu ghraib (and i’m frankly shocked how many people do), you bring up the panty thing with a chuckle and suddenly everyone who brings up the waterboarding, stress positions, mock executions, sleep deprivation and psychological torture looks out of touch. THAT’s diversionary misinformation and it’s quite sickly clever. i think the cruise missile thing is similar. the second anyone questions 9/11 an administration supporter can just go, ‘oh, you’re one of those cruise missle hit the pentagon nutjobs?’ and thereby foreclose on the discussion.

What are you talking about? They trained at civilian flight schools. Anyone with a credit card can do that.

I don't know. That's why it's unsolved.

What are you talking about? If anyone wanted to make the US look stupid, they could just put a tape of a hijacker on youTube.

Small objects and pieces of paper can survive. Lots of paper documents were scattered all over. The momentum of the plane debri probably carried it past the fireball and some distance away from the building before it fell to the ground, or maybe the roof of a nearby building.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi...8&EDATE=Sep+15

i'm talking about this.



it's also why i'm asking. does it not strike you as odd?



i'm talking about this...

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

and this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...23/widen23.xml



really? the WTC was obviously full of papers and so forth but you believe a passport at the point of impact would survive the fireball? it's possible, sure, but possible in the way that it's possible to throw a bucket full of watch parts on the ground and have them automatically fall into an assembled watch. possible, but incredibly unlikely.

If you look at the still pictures of the impact, you see a lot of debris coming from the building and falling that is not on fire. This debris would be mostly pieces of the plane. If the passport happend to be right behind a larger chunk of metal - perhaps one of the pieces visible in the photographs - it could have traveled through the building without being shredded and then fell, while the fireball, being hot, traveled mostly up.

Your watch metaphor does not apply, since nothing needs to randomly re-assemble.

I'll look at your links later.

well, again, it's possible, but beggars belief. and we haven't gotten to the part where it surfaced out of such a mammoth mountain of debris within hours after the towers fell.

really, it’s subjective. for those already inclined to believe the official version of the story, it seems innocuous. for those willing to question the official version, it looks an awful lot like planted evidence.

I think one should consult Occam's razor on this one.

Fact: only one piece of paper debris recovered was from on the plane.
Fact: that piece of debris happened to be the passport of one of the alleged hijackers.
Fact: The only other part of the plane to have survived was one engine.
Fact: This is the photo in question (right) and a picture of the man who was credited with owning the passport (left)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/a...0804jarrah.jpg

Occam's Razor tells us that because this is unreasonable and more reasonable explanations exist... well I think you know where I'm going with this.

i feel like i’m missing something obvious with those two photographs. they actually do look like the same person to me. what am i missing?

How do you know that a passport and an engine were the only objects from the plane found? What about the debris visible in the photographs? While they more accurately be called pieces rather than plane parts, I'm sure aircraft engineers could identify (from the pieces not the photos) what parts they came from. Are you telling me that no nuts, bolts or rivits survived?

I recall a news report about an airline seat containing a body being found on the roof of a nearby building, so there were other parts found. In fact most of the debris found on the roofs of buildings that were not destroyed would probably be plane parts, since the planes were traveling horizontally at 500 mph while the buildings fell down.

I suppose that's subjective. I don't think they look alike, but I could be wrong. The other stuff is the important stuff. According to Occam's Razor, it was planted.

None have been recovered. All the debris you saw was from inside the offices.

one of the pictures is much more brightly exposed than the other, it’s throwing me off.

photos are surprisingly inconclusive for determining identity... did anybody notice the flap way back in the first few days of the iraq war when they were having that allegedly staged celebration -- when the statue of hussein was brought down, that whole flap? well, someone found a photo where there was someone who looked a lot like ahmed chalabi, i think it was. then there was this big back and forth where some people found pictures of chalabi that looked like the dude in the photo, and then others countered by finding pictures of chalabi that didn’t. and was chalabi there? still dont know. i think there’s a pretty good argument that the celebration was staged, though -- it’s just that the photo give and take didn’t help make the argument.

similar thing with that one bin laden video -- some folks found a frame where it really doesn’t look like bin laden and circulated it around...

What source says that no plane debris other than an engine and a passport were found?

As for the pictures, the ear, eyebrow, nose, upper lip and chin all look very similar. The passport photo has longer hair and he may be a little thinner, but that may be due to different lighting. If you do photography, you know that two pictures of the same person taken on different dates with different lighting can easily be a dissimilar as these two shots are.

wow, this topic can goon forever. I just know there is something real sketchy about this whole thing.

One thing is very conclusive the Bush Administration was very fast to point out Osama's guilt, quickly followed by Guilliani.

The problem is the FBI states there is no hard evidence pointing to Osama, and has not charged him with 9/11.

This seems like a small detail at first, but stop and about what this really means.

It means that he hasn't been arrested, so he's not charged. What did you mean by "no hard evidence" and where did you read that? Were his fingerprints found at ground zero? Of course not. But if you can shoe that the hijackers and those who directly planned and supervised this plan were part of an organization and Osama ran it, then that is evidence.

Absolutely and profoundly wrong. When the Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, said, "He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.", he made clear that when people blame Osama bin Laden for 9/11, the only evidence of that is that he may have claimed responsibility in a film long since debunked as fake. This is why when you click on the link on the FBI most wanted web-page, Osama isn't wanted for anything pertaining to 9/11. What the statement means is that if there is evidence, it's not solid enough to charge with. An example of evidence of this type might be weak circumstantial evidence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082700687.html
http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupd...en_911_fbi.htm
Who has shown that the hijackers were trained and supervised by the al Qaeda? They were trained in the US, supposedly.

I'm talking about Kalid Sheik Mohammed and other operatives that were arrested in Pakistan - evidence than connects the highjackers to them, and them to ObL.

You mean "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed"? The guy was tortured for over 6 months? Yeah, I'm not sure if enough people know this, but as someone who has his degree in psychology, I can tell you that any and all information brought about via torture is unreliable at best and laughable in reality. After being water-boarded for 6 months, I may very well admit to being the mastermind behind 9/11 as well.

Aside from the torture, the meeting between Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and OBL in 1996 has never been verified outside of torture, and all information after 1996 is unverifiable as well.

Obviosly information gained under torture would not be admissible.

Are you in the CIA in a position where you know what information has been gatherred & verified and what has not?

An excelent book on the subject is A Pretext to War which spells out in great detail what happeded on 9/11, what intelligence resources we have in the Middle East, and how that intelligence was manipulated & distorted to justify the Iraq invasion.

That's just it. It has been. His confession in Guantanamo was given under the duress of torture and should be inadmissible, but it isn't because we're apparently allowed to torture people now.
I'm in the position to say that the public evidence is circumstantial outside of statements given under duress.

The FBI status is they no hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11. I don't think they found his fingerprints with what he has been charged with either. We have been shown and told allot of things.

I see your point, but the FBI obviously disagrees for some reason.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Interesting read.

Its good to see people still have the fire in their belly about this topic...

Yes because inane speculation and constant repetition by radical elements of long disproved ideas is good for a republic in a time of war. :rolleyes:

well, when the government shows such a stunning propensity to repeatedly lie to the people, you're going to get some of this. institutions that lie tend not to be believed.

i know the conspiracy theorizing and speculation gets on a lot of peoples' nerves but if the administration were more forthright that would take care of a lot of this stuff.

and are we really at war? did congress get around to declaring it? how come the responsibility to suppress dissent adheres but none of the other imperatives associated with a "time of war" do? no one's being conscripted, there's no rationing, no war bonds, we're not being asked to conserve (in fact, we're being asked to shop) and we're paying for the military action through deficit spending. it feels more like a high-risk business venture than a war to me.

This thread was 6 days away from falling out of the default month thread view.

Oh well.

I think the questions will remain valid until they are answered satisfactorily.
There are so many things wrong and missing. For instance victims not being listed in the Social Security Death Index, the aircraft being shown as still in service, the hijackers who may still be alive.

I doubt the whole truth will ever come out but that won't stop people from believing in the official story. Just look at the JFK assassin... fiasco.

:no:

Nothing can be answered satisfactorily to people who have decided that the only answer they will accept is a conspiratorial one.

That is what would satisfy you and sadly for you, you will never be satisfied.

It's funny seeing that coming from someone who only occasionally stops in to say that people are crazy and offers little or nothing for the thread.

I'm still waiting for some of the video tapes from the crash at the pentagon to be released that show that it was an actual plane that crashed into it. You know, those tapes that the FBI took from every single video camera within a few mile radius that may have been pointed in the general direction of the pentagon at the time. You would think that by now thy would have showed something other than 1 poorly angled split second blurry clip that doesn't show anything but a fireball. I mean.. unless there's something to hide. There's nothing to hide tho right?

That would solve allot of debate wouldnt it. I also think the way the President and Vice President didnt go under oath, had to go in together, and completely behind closed doors didnt look good.

Regardless of the huge suspicions on the actual events (towers collapsing, planes crashing, etc) and how they occurred, I think the main thing we should be investigating and questioning is who exactly was behind the attacks. I am convinced that those who have been officially blamed for the attacks are not the true perpetrators. In a world where the U.S. government has entered and brought on wars on the basis of U.S. instigated attacks guised as enemy attacks (Pearl Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin incident bringing on Vietnam, etc), I cannot see how anyone could blindly accept what the government has told us concerning this incident. It is totally plausible that these attacks were used for the same purposes - to give reason to bring on war (and thus make shitloads of money). The inaccuracies and confusions of the attacks only highlight the fact that this is a conspiracy. We can debate for years about how ridiculous it is that Tower 7 collapsed due to minimal damage by fire or how there is no concrete evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon (and people have been debating the details of these events for years now) - but what we really need to pay attention to is why this occurred and who was truly behind the attacks.

People tend to want to know where I live and where the nearest gun store is when the conversation moves from the physical evidence disproving the official story to who really is responsible.

Who is supposed to be in charge of those who are likely responsible?

Nixon was ousted even though he didn't break in to Watergate. Dereliction of duty at the least.

Ok, I'm jumping in share one point, then jumping out again. You can believe me or not, I don't care.

Earlier in this thread (or maybe a different one), I posted about how a friend of a friend was actually on the highway next to the Pentagon when the plane flew over his head. I have no reason to doubt this person, so have never doubted it was a plane.

Well, it turns out I know another witness and I didn't even know it. A close friend of my family (who shall remain nameless) was part of the FBI team sent to the Pentagon to investigate immediately after the plane hit. He personally told me about how he saw bodies (or portions of bodies) still strapped to airplane seats, and how he helped to identify airplane parts inside the building.

Seriously, if there was anything to these theories about 9/11 don't you think someone with, you know, actual credibility would be shouting from the rooftops by now?

EDIT: and before you all jump on this point, I don't know why they haven't released the videotapes yet. I didn't ask and I doubt he could tell me if I did. My suspicion (based on nothing) is that the tapes don't show anything useful and nobody is willing to spend the time to get the release of the tapes processed just to satisfy conspiracy nutjobs.

you do realize we've stopped trying, right? you have have blinded yourself to any science that doesn't support your theory so there is no point arguing with you.

I know it's frustrating when you're wrong, but it's always best to learn from it instead of avoiding it. Yes, it's difficult to argue with someone who bends the laws of physics until they break in a desperate attempt to support the official story, but here I am.

The unfortunate reality is that some people are willing to break the rules of science and reason itself to be more comfortable with their world. That's you call, but if you come in here dumping on me for what you yourself are guilty of, don't expect coddling.

This about to fall off the front page and certainly UsTwo can't be out of ammo.

So these "silly no plane theories" ... at first i didn't believe that either , after all we did see them on TV. But then i've seen a shipwrecked professor make a radio out of coconuts and a pretty blonde genie nod her head and make people appear. But i grew out of believing that. :)

While it's hard to prove what did happen we can look at the evidence that bolsters the official lie.



Notice the smoke direction vs plane direction.

This is a longer one (we'll lose USTwo) but brings up a few points.

Or this... PG13, they don't say "gosh" so turn the sound off if you have sensitive ears. Around 1:10 he says "it was a rocket or something".
http://www.youtube.com/v/Fme4HoECBOM

Sweet sweet irony.

LOL showing autos crashing into fixed blocks of concrete shows what????? I'm sorry I'm not following.

I guess you've never been inside a high rise, they are not as dense as the walls that I live in which is which is cinder block and brick. It is the same reasons why the baseball players plane did little damage to that building.

The September Clue videos are much better, there are 10 parts, here's one.

and another

Look what the towers were made of, they did show the walls being constructed. They were built like sewer grates and even if the planes didn't shred they should have at least crumpled. The videos show no effect on the plane whatsoever. Those car crashes do show what an impact ought to look like. Need me to post ACTUAL plane crash videos too?

Edited earlier post to make the thread easier to read.

9/11
 

Listen everyone, I don't want to offend any of you; but the fact of the matter is it Was an inside job...#1 The beams at the base of the towers were cut at an angle at which demolition teams use for maximum efficiency.#2 Solid steel does NOT collapse in a pancake fashion at 500degrees Celsius. #3 World Trade Center Tower Number Seven exploded and collapsed without any planes or known objects coming into contact with it(explain that).#4 Other than the "tapes" there is NO evidence linking Osama B. Laden to any of the hijackers involved. #5 Five of the Hijackers "involved" were still alive and breathing Thousands of miles away after the crash. And on a related topic... It is the Arab investors of american based companies who sell America it's national defense materials... So now you know where the money went... Sorry it was so long -.-'

I also forgot to mention that in the debree there was not ONE object found larger than a silver dollar... no desks, no phones, no computers, no nothing... It seems to me if a building collapses it should have just crushed these things, not disintegrated them.

Zeightgeist... Youtube... watch it....

Don't worry...you don't offend....just amuse....in a 'life is but a joke' sort of way.

Conspiracy
 

To the person who asked who is responsible for all this. It's obvious isn't it. It's the same people who have been manipulating the american economy since the birth of America. The World bankers... Sounds crazy yes. But in fact the Federal Reserve Bank of America prints the money for the USA acting as a Central Bank. They then Loan the printed money to the USA at INTEREST. So every Dollar that is printed is automatically in debt. Why do you think taxes are so high... None of that money goes to the American Government.. It goes straight to the Federal Reserve Bank of America... A privately owned corporation that sparks wars between America using the Media and other tactics... Hitler did the same thing

"...and so he led the country to fascism. A fascist country is one that runs mostly using military power, with a strong sense of nationalism...much like a dictatorship...he used propaganda to discriminate against a certain scapegoat - usually a country or religious group."
-History textbook
"The Rise of Hitler"

You haven't read a word of this thread, have you?

I just have to make sure . . .you changed your name, right?

any ideas what to do about all of it? Spread the information, right . . . and then what?

for my first post, consider the following:


Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect

by

Judy Wood and John Hutchison

http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/


Excerpt:

=======================
In considering how the WTC complex was destroyed, many people have criticised the research posted here because it does not state or describe the exact technology employed.

These pages include data which strongly implicates a class of technology as being one of the main ones used.

The data below seem to strongly tie up with features of what has become known as "The Hutchison Effect". The Hutchison Effect actually seems to describe a range of observed characteristics, some of which are listed below. John Hutchison is a Canadian inventor and experimental scientist who has been experimenting with "field effects" for almost 30 years. There is a great deal of information about him on the internet, and a selection is linked from this set of pages.

The table below lists effects and events seen at or in the vicinity of World Trade Center and compares those with observed characteristics of the Hutchison Effect. Clearly, the posting of this material is quite controversial, but even in the various documentaries that have featured John Hutchison, he has suggested that the techniques he has discovered and developed have been further refined by places like Lockheed Skunkworks, S.A.I.C. (Science Applications International Corp.), and also by perhaps other defense companies.
=======================


My comments: Although still under construction, the new paper gives many clues to the technology that was used to destroy the World Trade Center. Take a look at the many pictures and see for yourself! People can no longer claim that this technology does not exist. It definitely DOES exist!

Also note the two companies mentioned in the excerpt above (Lockheed Martin and SAIC). Both are sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society! The government even contracted with SAIC for the NIST Report.



Dr Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, and John Hutchison on WPFC - We Ourselves 14/18 Jan 2008
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/#ambrose


See the "News" section of Dr Wood's website for more interviews.
http://drjudywood.com/#news


For proof that the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were all orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media, see my new article:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...=151&Itemid=60


Also note the two Court Cases in the US District Court, Southern New York, with attorney Jerry Leaphart:

Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...1=federal_case


Bottom line... there were NO hijackings on 9/11 and the entire War On Terror is BOGUS!

Even Peter Jennings knew the 9/11 airplane video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC plays the clip back in slow motion:

As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Kieth says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...planer_resigns


What about the eyewitnesses who say they saw planes hit the towers, you ask? See the following analysis of the WTC Task Force Interviews, which were published in the New York Times. You'll learn that only a very small percentage of the First Responders reported seeing airplanes hit the towers. Even fewer reported hearing them. But... they had no trouble hearing the fighter jets later on! Whatever they saw "hit" the towers was a projection:

Going in Search of Planes in NYC
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...=134&Itemid=60


What about the airplane wreckage, you ask? Well, first of all, there are NO verified airplane parts. (The government refuses to release any.) And second, when an airplane crashes into a building, the engines are not going to wind up underneath scaffolding:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...230806wtc7.jpg

See here for more:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...with_jones#NBB


What about the cell phone calls, you ask? Faked using advanced voice synthesizer technology as reported in the Washington Post two and a half years before 9/11:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...rkin020199.htm



There were NO hijackings on 9/11.

There were NO plane crashes on 9/11.

The entire War On Terror is BOGUS.

kings_32, you didn't bother to read any of the posts in this thread, did you?

There is no evidence to suggest a "directed energy weapon". That damages the case to get questions answered more than any other single theory, including the Loose Change "Die Hard with a Vengeance" theory.

Yes. I should probably post a thread about it to prevent any confusion.
At least we agree on something. I'm also surprised anyone has the gall to claim that the Hutchison effect is anything but fraud. these days. I really don't see how anyone could suggest with a straight face that there were no planes, especially at the WTC. Now I remember why I abandoned this thread months ago.

willravel, I've responded to your post here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...25#post2384325 because I feel strongly that offering explanations as to what happened to cause WTC 7 to collapse, is exactly the opposite of what skeptics of the official stroy of 9/11, should be doing.....and since, my response, and yours above, cannot be called "paranoid", because they are too well supported to be subject to such a dismissal, I am not going to post an in depth response to you on this thread.

Let the government offer it's explanation and supporting detail, and then examine and point out contradictions and deficiencies in the government's account, if there are any.

The_Jazz, I read some of them... just enough to know that the real issues aren't being discussed. For instance, where did the hundreds of tons of steel go? Why did the government contract with sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society for the NIST Report?


Regarding the Hutchison Effect, watch this statement by Nick Cook:
&o=1

People can say there were no plane crashes on 9/11 (especially at the WTC) for one simple reason: there are people who looked at the evidence and know there were no plane crashes on 9/11. (And I'm talking about the real evidence, not the propaganda.)

You need to read more. All this material has b een presented before. It's actually been presented in an identical way to yours. It makes me wonder if you aren't the former member who presented it.

Classic appeal to authority. If scientific evidence can be provided, I'll consider it. I don't consider it evidence to watch videos that appear to be filmed with the camera and props upside. Just because someone important believes something irrational does not make it rational or credible.

It's easy to come to a conclusion when you decry anything that doesn't support your side as propaganda. Millions of people saw the second plane hit on live TV, and there are videos of the first hitting. They left plane-sized and plane-shaped holes in the non-reinforced structure of the towers. The Pentagon is a heavily fortified building that withstood all but the most massive part of the plane. Large sections of fuselage, engine and landing gear pieces, and piles of luggage are visible in photos taken after the crash.

I started out believing the conspiracy theories because I didn't see evidence to contradict them. When I stopped hearing just what I wanted to hear, the evidence didn't add up to a conspiracy.

kings_32 I do believe 9/11 was a partial false flag operation, but a good friend of mine that served with me in the military, and whom I'd trust with my life is a fireman in NYC. He was there that day on duty and just happend to be one of the lucky ones. After the first plane hit, he was one of the first on the scene. While he arrived after the first tower was on fire, he clearly saw a plane hit the second tower.

I'm of the opinion now that there were some sort of objects like planes but not the planes they claim them to be. Way too many irregularities.


Maybe the chief nitwit knows?