exchange "terrorist" for "Communist" and you have deja-vu of McCarthyism. Upto this point in history, everybody looked back on the McCarthy era with a knowing smirk, and thought that they were so easily mislead back then. That it could never happen again.

Well, people have short memories, and are doomed to repeat that little bit of history.

Why do you think Anne Coulter and Limbaugh and O'Reilly keep saying "McCarthy wasn't that bad, that he was just misunderstood and the liberal media has made more of it than there truly was"?

I don't think it's short memories, I think that the powers that be saw how easily led the Baby Boomers were, how follow the leader and manipulated they were and played it against us.

And the Reagan years proved that people cared more about the money and toys then they did with where the country was headed politically and where our rights were concerned. They learned if you have people in debt and fearful of losing their jobs they are more apt to be quiet and not raise a fuss, for fear of losing everything.

So now when rights are taken away, or 9/11's happen, or we see massive scandals...... yeah there maybe some people who try to open eyes but noone truly stands up because I believe we are scared not only of what we may lose financially and such, but we are scared to see the truth and what really is going on. How bad off we truly are, how indebted we truly are and what the politicians and greedy fucks have truly sold and given away to line their own pockets.

If he were responsible for bringing truth to everyone, I would gain so much respect for him. Because right now, well...

And this group or person was worried about the left wing wackjob Mayor of San Fransico for some reason and was willing to expose their/his/its plan to save him.

:rolleyes:

So just what sort of conspiracy is this? Is there a rational reason to risk it to save some very minor political figure?

Notice how no real prominent or very public officials or businessmen died in the 9/11 attacks? The only one I can think of is a fairly high level government employees wife, but I can't think of her name at the moment. It's very possible that this is a coincidence, except for this article. This is the kind of tidbits of weird shit that I constantly see when reading articles:

Silverstein, the shady leaseholder who purchashed the massive insurance policy of the WTC complex months before the attacks and who was filmed giving the famous "pull it" comment, was supposed to be eating breakfast in the twin towers that day but lucky for him he had a doctors appointment instead. This article is about rebuildling the WTC and this bizarre bit of information is just kind of thrown in there. Isn't it kinda of weird that he missed breakfast that day? Oh and there just happened to be drills on 9/11 depicting the exact same event, and Norad just happened to stand down that day, and and first steel buildings to fall from fire happened that day too.

It's not my job or the job of the citizens to take all these pieces of the puzzle and fit them together. We don't have the abilility or the access to the resources neccessary to do so. It's only our job to look at the puzzle and say it's not fitting together correctly and we collectively (new independent commission) need to figure out why. Again, it doesn't really matter why the mayor was called at this point (that's the job of a real commission), all the matters is we expose the fact that he was notified of an event that was taking place in New York and ask why this information was ignored by the 9/11 commission.

We need to expose that a conspiracy likely happend on 9/11 and on the investigation, and call for an new independent investigation, not compound the problem by arguing about who did it and why.

Weird that Zachirias Moussaoui testified today as being intended to hijack a 5th plane for 9/11, and that he only maintained his innocence so far as to allow the attacks to procede.

But he must be a government stooge.

Oh yeah Osama Bin Laden isn't real as it was actually the moussad zionists that flew the planes into the buildings.

Samcol, I believe you're thinking of Barbara Olson, the wife of then-Solicitor General Ted Olson. Incidentally, Olson also represented Bush in Bush v. Gore 2000, thus getting the President into office. Sort of a raw deal that his wife died on his 61st birthday.

These are incridibly brilliant, researched, and supported claims Mojo. This is the best post I've ever seen. :hmm:

What would your response be to the fact that at least 7 of the 9/11
hijackers are still alive? It looks a lot like the official report on 9/11 is the nutty conspiracy theory.

If seven of the are alive then they never were aboard the hijacked planes. There would obviously be some break down with the names and intelligence.

Im sorry but all the conspiracy theories in the world aren't going to bring back those that meet i'll fate on that day...Hopefully we can learn something from it,to honor those that went before us. And lets face it we still haven't learnt the truth from the Kennedy assasination,and probably never will. But what we did learn is that the government are a bunch of lieing mother fuckers that cannot be trusted..

If intel as simple as the names and number of hijackers is wrong, then why blindly trust the rest of the information? Is there any harm in asking questions?

I know that solving the puzzle isn't going to bring anyone back, but it sure will give a lot of people closure if we can bring whoever is responsible for 9/11 to justice. Letting them go free leaves them the opportunity to do it again.

Ok, let's say that there was a 9/11 conspiracy. Personally, I believe that there was government involvement to some extent...But, what purpose did it serve? Where does all of this lead to?

Were the lives of 3,000 Americans the price to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? For an oil pipeline and a country rich with it?

This might be way off, but the economy is doing ok now, thanks in part to the government spending in the defense sector. If the attack never happened and the military never got an increased budget, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have my job.

Imagine that right after the tech bubble burst, you had the defense industry dry up because there was no real threat. There is no real need to have all of these bases, soldiers, and new equipment, if there is no one to fight. The housing industry would have never taken off, and the auto industry would be doing worse than it is now.

Well I try to take this in steps.

Step 1) Ask questions about the occourances on 9/11. Why did the building fall? Why did the news say that? How could that hole be so small? etc.

Step 2) Try to answer the questions. It could have been thermite charges. They could be covering or just as in the dark as the rest of us. The hole could have been caused by a UMV.

Step 3) Big picture. Why did they do that?

I'm still in the middle of step 3, so I can't answer the question completly. I *think* it could be that the military industrial complex needs to be fed, and the president, vice president, and many high ranking members of the government have taken actions to line their pockets. While it's possible that they are simply ignorant to all the various questions about 9/11, I doubt that not of the improtant people in the government could have asked one question. The 9/11 Commission was a joke. The FEMA and NIST reports on 9/11 are jokes.

I can't answer your question with any level of certianty, but I can tell you that you should ecide whether the smaller questions have answers first. If you don't believe the small stuff, then what reason do you have to believe the big stuff?

I'm not as concerned about the hole being that small. I've seen the test video of the F-4 flying into the concrete slab. The plane doesn't do very well. I would think that there would be jet fuel fire marks in the shape of the wings, where the fuel would have impacted the building. And, I want to find a pilot who could hit a 5 or 6 story building at full speed, the first time flying that size of an aircraft. And where are the eye-witnesses? There should be tons of them. Or are there any unedited security camera tapes. Did the black box make it? How could they find a black box in mountainside plane crash, but not a building one?

I want it to of happened like they said it did, but I still have a lot of unanswered questions.

Yes indeed. The Bush administration needed a reason to go to war..."A New Pearl Harbor". Afghanistan was in control by the Taliban, which blocked America's access to the oil-rich area of the Caspian (spell check) Sea.

Also note - before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii a Gallop poll estimated that less than 20% of the American population wanted the USA to enter World War II. The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor over 1million men enlisted in the military. The defense sector is our biggest and most profitable industry, it controls everything from agriculture to communications to manufacturing, etc. All America needed was a reason to invade and they manufactured it. We then invaded Iraq on false information, which they had the puppet (aka. Colin Powell) say that there were WMDs in Iraq. We never found them. I heard on a DVD (reopen911.org) that Powell was in charge of covering up the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam also...so he isn't any stranger to lying to the American public. Also in Desert Storm he said that over 2500 Iraqi tanks were on the border of Saudi Arabia poised to invade, but satellite photos showed there was not one tank on that border....why lie?

America bombards the country to a pulp and "frees" the citizens there and look at them now, total anarchy. Who knows when American soldiers will be leaving that area. Now w/ America threatening Iran and their pursuit of nuclear arms, the US armed forces may never come home.

[QUOTE=ASU2003]This might be way off, but the economy is doing ok now... QUOTE]

Don't give them any more ideas... kill 3000 people = creating 3000 new job openings.
It would appear they could get a giant defense budget increase and deflect attention from the already lost billions.

Afghanistan also means opium poppy... may be a connection there.

Universal's flight 93 message board has been infiltrated by the 9/11 skeptics.
http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/index.php

The number of people who are questioning 9/11 is exploding.

I prefaced what is contained as documentation of the holes in the flight 93 "heroes" propaganda, and the Moussouai prosecution, over at the politis forum, in the flight 93 poll thread:
<b>In depth, Flight 93 phone call descriptions in this Newsweek Report:</b>
<b>Through the saturation of our sensibilities from four years of government sponsored, fear filled propaganda, we've arrived at a point that our DOJ is powerful and arrogant enough to maintain that we, the people, can be prohibited from access to information that the DOJ prosecutors have made available to an accused criminal who they say is a member of Al Qaeda who conspired to attack us on 9/11!</b>

Hum, so far this is the only link I've looked at in this thread. I'm not going jump in and say it is or isn't a cover up. I am just going to say that I think this piece of film as evidence of it being a cover up is total off base. They "what a real plane crash looks like" like show pretyt much the same thing on all the crashes. It hits, it sparks, it goes up in a fire ball. Now, there is one MASSIVE problem with trying to compair the 9/11 crash with the other. The other are hitting SOLID OBJECTS like the ground. The 9/11 hit a hollow stucture. Now, looking at the mass and speed of an airplane, yeah, it would make it all the way inside a building before the fuel sparked, and look, well, like the video of a plane disapearing into a building. I think this secion of vid is on the level.

I don't think anybody doubts a plane hit either of the WTC towers. Any cover ups have to do with other things like the Pentagon, the PA crash, the WTC buildings collapsing, the still alive suicide pilots, phony phone calls, lack of Arabs aboard the planes, lethargic response to hijackings, sheisters in control, etc.

It's almost like a movie, a really stupid one where some dummy has their car throttle pedal stick down and drives half way across the country at 120mph before realizing the ignition switch has an off position.

Why do some Americans feel teh need to console themselves that they were somehow "duped" into going to war, as if the US is so superior to every other nation that ever went to war for money, politics or just being pig headed?

I think the true conspiracy is by the conspiracy theorists who feel the need to make excuses for how their countrymen were fooled into supporting an invasion that, in hindsight, many more people are now pretty uncomfortable with.

You got attacked. You got mad. Made a few jokes about Islam and the French. You invaded 2 countries, one justifiably, one not. Now you're stuck.

Well in our defense, we've always mae jokes about the french. :lol:

A new 9/11 movie, or at least new to me. I hope it hasn't been posted before.

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but this is a video of Rumsfeld admitting to the plane over Pennsylvania being shot down. The people in the background look quite shocked.

More than we know. That much I'm sure of.

IMO what happened was a mix of gooberment involvement, PNAC, and OBL's base.

Why?

A pipeline in Afghanastan, oil fields in Iraq, and save the Petro-dollar.
At the same time line the pockets of the perps, through selling the military what they need to wage war, and security needs here.

In a word Greed.


BTW: It gave them the ability to surround Iran, the other country that is going to sell it's oil for Euros.

Couple more links to check out...
http://www.question911.com/
http://www.iamthewitness.com/index.html

This is a pretty neat video of Gypsy Taub confronting the 9/11 commissioners. How can these people live with themselves considering all the important information they ignored and/or covered up?

Confronting the 9/11 Comissioners

Radio interview with Gypsy Taub regarding the confrontations

I'm about 1/3rd of my way digging into this thread... in case anyone hasn't seen this yet, I highly recommend it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

Gypsy Taub comes across as a nut. Makes credibility tough even though she may be sincere and right.

On the other hand this is more credible...
http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/colonels.html

Right after the whole deal, when planes weren't allowed to fly, i talked to my neighbor, a retired pilot. He is into old cars and we talked that but then talk turned to planes and the whole 9-11 deal. He has flown more hours than almost any person alive, starting before WW2. In everything up to 747's. He still follows aviation keenly in his old age. He thought several things were fishy.

What happened to the anti terrorist flight control program that can land the plane if hijacked?

Making a sharp U turn while descending at high speed like what happened over DC, the heaviness of the controls would mean a very experienced pilot... or remote control.

An intruder in the cockpit can be disarmed in an instant with a quick prod of the joystick. He thought no pilot would give up a plane without trying something and was baffled that four were claimed to have been taken.

Damn Overlord, that's the best video by far I've seen on the subject. Excellent find.

While checking out a link to some drama about a stolen cellphone i ran across a guys WTC pictures from his neighboring apartment.

http://www.evanwashere.com/pics/9-11/9-11/index.htm

Perhaps some new angle compared to what we have seen elsewhere. The start of the fall and picture just before it are quite interesting. Obviously the fire is much less severe in the first building to fall, as it starts crumbling there seems to be a lot of small particulate ejected a long distance outward and the puffs of smoke or dust just below seem curiously spaced.

I haven't read every response in this thread, so forgive me if I say something which has already been addressed.

I'm not architect/engineer, but there is one thing that always perplexed me. Both of the towers were hit relatively high up, so how was it that they ended up collapsing? It seems to me that, if anything should have happened, the floors above the impact point should have either:

1.) Fallen off to the side (The fact that they fell straight down when the planes hit at an angle seems rather... Incredulous) or

2.) Simply caved in, but not have caused the both towers to collapse on themselves. As I stated earlier, I'm not an archtect/engineer, but it seems rather odd that the towers collapsed the way they did, considering how high up they were hit.

In fact, I remember when it happened (I was in physics class) and the thought NEVER crossed my mind that the towers would collapse, because it just didn't-- And still doesn't-- Seem possible, considering how they were hit.

I remember there being a video from Osama stating that even he was surprised that the towers caved in as they did, as he was only expecting the floors above the impact point to cave in.

That's my $.02 (A bit late, I know. But better late than never).

Infinite_Loser, that pretty much sums up my issues as well. It makes VERY little sense. Demolition does, however, solve all of those issues.

Also note that Osama actually DENIED being invovled at first... no wonder he's never been "found" He's probably lounging at a US Embassy somewhere eating cavier on a US dime.

It'll take me more time that I can spare at work, but I have gone through that video scene-by-scene and debunked every "fact" presented. I'll try to do the same for TFP this weekend.
As a moderator, I usually exercise a lot of restraint in my responses, but the flash animation that the first link claims is a good place to get started, is a pathetic, asinine attmep at an argument. As far as 9-11 conspiracy "proofs" go, Whether you are just throwing out links or are choosing a roundabout way to out yourself as a racist, the second link adds no credibility to what I assume to be your argument in favor of conspiracy theories.

2.) Simply caved in, but not have caused the both towers to collapse on themselves. As I stated earlier, I'm not an archtect/engineer, but it seems rather odd that the towers collapsed the way they did, considering how high up they were hit.

In fact, I remember when it happened (I was in physics class) and the thought NEVER crossed my mind that the towers would collapse, because it just didn't-- And still doesn't-- Seem possible, considering how they were hit.

I remember there being a video from Osama stating that even he was surprised that the towers caved in as they did, as he was only expecting the floors above the impact point to cave in.

That's my $.02 (A bit late, I know. But better late than never).[/QUOTE]
The WTC towers were built in such a way that nothing other than a straight-down collaps was possible. The basic structure was a steel cage to which steel-reinforced concrete floors were attached with angle brackets. The collapse began when the steel beams deformed (not melted) to the point that a few floors were wrenched loose from the angle brackets. As these floors collapsed, they overloaded the angle brackets of the floors below, causing a domino-effect that continued to the ground. As the internal structural elements collapsed, the outer cage was pulled down along with it. If it were just one or two top floors collapsing, or possibly if the floors that were hit collapsed with no degradation of structural strength from fires, the buildings might have remained standing, but the damage was too widespread.

Nobody quite expected it to happen because we havd never seen fully-fueled planes crash into buildings, causing flash fires that gave way to secondary fires, which heated the structural steel enough to weaken and deform it. To answer the nagging question of "why did the WTC collapse when fire never took a building down before?" the buildings were designed to withstand fires that started in one place and spread over the course of minutes or hours, not an inferno ignited by an accelerant across several floors in only a few seconds.

Tom DeLonge from blink 182 is the latest entertainment celebrity to question government complicity/conspiracy in 9/11. I think it's good even when hollywood and rock stars come forward like Charlie Sheen and DeLonge because it exposes the topic to a greater number of people even if they don't neccessarily have the credentials to be taken seriously. However, the messages of former H.W. Bush and W. Bush administration officials and former CIA agents calling 9/11 an inside job's definetly helps add credibility to the 9/11 truth movement. Hopefully more people will follow in their footsteps.

MSD, I have only one question for you. Look at a picture of the Pentagon crash. Look for two big holes in the wall where the massive, extreemly heavy engines would have hit. Not even a scratch. There is no reasonable explaination for the lack fo entry points for the engines, which were much stronger than the frame of the plane and the crash dome. Had a plane hit the Pentagon, there would be three holes, one in the middle, and two on the outside. There were no such holes, so whatever hit the Pentagon did not have engines mounted on wings.

Will, I'm not a mechanical engineer but I've seen enough to know a layman's common sense can lead to flawed assumptions.

I'd like to see a simulation or explanation for how a large jet behaves in a frontal impact. The force/area over time would be much higher for the fuselage than engines but what happens during those first moments? Does the nose crumple and the rest of the jet continue forward until the force drives the center through? Do the wings shear off and continue forward with engines, and the energies then vaporize much of what's left? Should the engines have flattened and gone poof, or would they have broken through the reinforced concrete? Or would the wings and engines stay attached and be pulled inward, into the maelstrom?

It all depends on the design of that jet, the structure, and the forces of the event. Without an engineering knowledge of everything we're out of our league.

It's simple physics. Engines don't turn into jello upon impact. Bodies in motion tend to stay in motion. A massve object collides with another object at a great speed, but doesn't leave one mark at all. I can chip away at brick with a small hammer moving relatievly slowly. Why is it that a very heavy engine that is moving at hundreds of miles per hour doesn't leave any record of a collision? Well Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explaination is that there were no large engines that struck the wall.
Honestly, there are too many variables to account for to know with 100% certianty. Here's what we do know:

-At least some part of the object that hit the Pentagon was able to punch out holes through not one, but many of the thick, reinforced walls, making it's way all the way into the inner ring

- The engines from the plane made no holes:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagonhole.jpg

- The engines from the plane were the most dense and heavy part of the plane

Let me get my white sheet back on here...:lol:

Perhaps Mr Destruct didn't check that whole link out?
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBr...onSummary.html

Read the thing, it's not racist.

Domino effect, yeah right, it's what, like 100 floors, friggin' thing would have taken several times as long to fall if that were true.

The Pentagon. Get serious, one hole punched though all those walls, are you saying it was the stale bread rolls? Did the engines vaporize against the stucco wall? Simple fact is the "evidence" shows one engine, of a type not used in that plane. Where's the rest?

It isn't a magical thing when a plane crashes. The impact speed is given as a suspiciously high number, but even at that speed the plane wouldn't turn into powder.

This is the part that makes me uncomfortable with "simple physics."

Do we know they didn't make any marks? Where would they go in the collision? Do the mounts points fail early leaving the engines to continue unabated? That would be a problem vs. the story, but what if that isn't how they behave? Do they instead slow progressively somewhat with the fuselage and wings only to be pulled into the enlarging hole? How do the wings fail? Sheer or break forward from deceleration, or back from being drawn into the hole?

Those are the questions I was getting at in my last post. It may be correct to assume everything would pancake but I don't know enough about how those jets behave against what's essentially a stone face with windows.

I hope you aren't the police collision analyst with those theories.

I'm afraid the wings don't fold backwards upon impact, the plane is also not made of rubber nor paper mache. I don't expect it to make a perfect hole in the exact shape like when Wile E Coyote runs into a wall. The heavy parts like engines would not vaporize.
What's the distance across the engines on one of those planes, i'm thinking it must be around 75 feet?

So what we have there looks like throwing three darts taped together at a dartboard and one sticks in while the other two vanish

Thanks for the link --- interesting, troubling, and no suprise

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/11497...ition_Part_One

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/11510...e_Sight_Part_1

I'll let the jackass snipes season themselves.

Theories? I'm asking. What happens? Do the wings shear off, fold forward as attachment fail, fold back as the jet create and enters the hole, what? How much of the jet has to stack up at that velocity to break through that type of structure? That'd affect deceleration and everything following. If you have credentials in engineering related to crash investigations I'd love to hear how these things occur. I doubt any of us believe the jet would remain in the original configuration throughout the collision, what with the impact speed and associated stresses, but I haven't seen it addressed.

Cyrnel, I assume that you are suggesting that the physics surrounding the Pentagon crash are counter-intuitive, or a proposition that does not seem likely to be true using intuition or gut feelings, however is true none the less. One example of something being counter-intuitive is the Earth from our perspective. For thousands of years, man believed the Earth to be flat because of our perspective. Eventually science was able to explain that the Earth was not flat, but was spherical. It's just a really, really big spheroid.

Usually counter-intuitive conclusions are discovered by simply developing a scientific explaination on a subject. Fortunately for us, plane crashes are fairly simple. A Boeing 757-200 is essentially a big aluminum tube with aluminum frame wings covered in a thin aluminum alloy skin. Aluminum is a very light metal, that is very fragile. The Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engines, however, are 141 inch tall, about 7100 pounds, and is the most dense part of the plane by far. 1) There is no evidence that wings of planes fold in upon impact with anything - there is no prescedent in the history of planes crashing -, 2) even if, by some mericle, the wings folded into the plane as it crashed into that tiny hole, there is no reason to believe that the connection between the wing and the engine would be strong enough to pull the engines into the plane with the wings, and 3) Occam's razor. In our system of hypothesis, it's more often the simplest answer that is the corrrect one. What is more likely: the wings of a plane going 300-400 mph (depending on who you ask) has it's wings fold in to the plane so fast they they pull in the engines and do not leave a mark on brick walls, or the building was hit by something other than a Boeing 757-200.

I've seen no evidence to show that my conclusions based on facts are counter intuitive.

Couple of things from me as I mull things around. Some support the standard story, some don't. First the 'pro':

Means/methods/motive: while means and methods can't be too up in air (if 20 terrorists could get this done, surely a group of 'secret terrorists' within our govornment COULD do it). But my problem lies within the motive area. How many people would it take to wire buildings for demolition, organize, grab video cameras and everything else a coverup would take? Surely more than 20. Is it 30? 50? Assuming 50, how do you get 50 people motivated to do that? How do you get 50 people to hold silence for 5 years? No guilt, no tell all from a single person?

I think that someone's preference is to start at the other end of the investigation (willravel?). If we could disprove the physical evidence of consipiracy, then there would be no need to question motive - the whole thing would just blow away. While I respect that direction, there is no reason not to look at it from the other direction, too.

What's the motivation that works for 30 or 50 or 70 people? Clearly there are those that have benefitted from war/terror. But does that motivate the people who would need to get the work done?


On the other side, the fishiest thing about 9-11 is the death count. If you're big bad terrorists bent on striking a blow against America, why grab planes at 7am? Why not 10am? If the planes had hit the building between 10am and noon, wouldn't the death count have reached 20k+. Maybe 50k? (depending upon how many evacuated before they fell). Why did the plane hit the empty part of the Pentagon? Terrorists are smart enough to plan it, and fly it, but didn't know the latest info on the P-gon?

Perhaps they revere the lives of minor military functionaries?

From the conspiracy side, there's the obvious: we want to cause a crisis but don't want to kill anymore americans than we have to...

But there is also the less obvious: if someone set charges, the more people who leave the building that see unusual things hurts the story. Do they want 10k people leaving the buildings seeing/hearing things that aren't kosher?


I sure don't know the truth, but am inclined to believe that any time something huge happens there's different ways to spin the details such that it looks fishy. Having said that, I do think there are a number of truly bizarre questions that should be answered. I don't see the harm of checking/asking, and I really don't see why it bothers people...

Keep on asking, Will!

The bottom 40% of the fuselage is a big, reinforced section that amounts to a long lump of metal. This section is what punched the hole in the wall, while the rest was shredded, forming the rain of aluminum that bystanders reported as being "like confetti" before realizing that it was pieces of the plane. While the wings were wither sheared off or folded back, they retained enough forward momentum to follow the plane into the hole, where the engines were found. Pictures clearly show impact marks from the engines, which remained attached to the wings. The right wing's structure was likely compromised and the engine severely damaged after the engine collided with a generator on the lawn, pushing it toward the building.

So the wings folded in and entered a hole no wider than the fuselage? Even though the plane was moving at somewhere between 300 and 500 mph? I would sooner expect for them to have simply struck the wall and ignited and exploded.
I've seen a lot of pictures before and after the collapse of the roof, and I've not yet noticed any kinds of impact marks outside of the main hole and some broken glass (and fire damage, obviosuly). If you have a link, I'd appreciate it.

boatin says : " But my problem lies within the motive area. How many people would it take to wire buildings for demolition, organize, grab video cameras and everything else a coverup would take? Surely more than 20. Is it 30? 50? Assuming 50, how do you get 50 people motivated to do that? How do you get 50 people to hold silence for 5 years? No guilt, no tell all from a single person?"

Put them on the planes?

Wow! Holy shit, you're right! But the conspiracy goes even deeper than that! No buddhist monks died, no eskimos died, there wasn't one single winner of the Jack Daniels world Championship Barbeque Contest who died. . . . Damn, this is really amazing! Imagine a whole conspiracy designed to protect all these different groups of people!

Oh, and no one from Shakran City, India died either so I probably helped plan it all out, right?


;)

I don't think anybody has really bothered to investigate who the victims were since passenger manifest numbers and the number of dead don't match.

"Mom, this is Mark Bingham" :rolleyes:

Counter-intuitive can be a POV issue, such as your solar system example, or one of... criminy, what's it called when effects differ with scale or rate? In this case we have big rate, wildly different materials, and unknowns. Can we look at everything honestly, investigate the unknowns, and make objective evaluations without leaps?

The fuselage carries much more mass than the engines. The engines might make the single biggest bang/moment but there's far more total energy behind the fuselage. I'll try to err in the engine's favor.

Engine height: 141" or 11'9" - I'm betting that includes skin so let's say 10'9".
Frontal engine area: 13070 inches
PW Engine weight: 7100lbs
Static weight/frontal in.sq.: .54lbs

757-200 fuselage height: 12'4" (from Boeing)
Body exterior height: (dunno - looks fairly round)
Frontal fuselage area: 17110 inches
Empty weight of a 747-200: 127,520lbs.
Empty weight minus engines: 113,320lbs.
Wings? Guessing at 30% or 34,000lbs.
Empty weight minus engines and wings: 79,320lbs
Static weight/frontal in.sq.: 4.64lbs

I'm completely ignoring cargo, passengers, and fuel but keep in mind Boeing's Medium Takeoff Weight of 240,000lbs.

Still this is algebra playing a calculus game. The initial impact will be the nose with all the jet's weight behind it, changing as things fail or deform. How it happens takes much more knowledge than I possess.

Funny search engine results:
"Looking for Boeing 757 200?
www.ebay.com Find exactly what you want today."

Will, I'm looking at your post on page 4 (#136 this thread). The damage vs jet seem quite reasonable given the angle involved. Not sure if scale is accurate and I'm so very done for today.

I would guess that the structure of the wing was heavily damaged, but since it is reinforced enough to sustain 60,000 pounds of thrust at maximum throttle, bent back after damage to teh front half of each wing was severe enough.
Since the right engine hit first, and was damaged by the generator it hit before the wall, the damage on the right side is more clearly defined, but scorched marks on both sides are apparent. The left side had to bend less to fit into the hole, so the impact is not as severe.

MSD, that picture was taken after the collapse. The collapse completly destroyed any trace of where the right engine would have struck the building. On he lft, there is no damage from where the engine would have impacted.

A plane with a bomb that exploded after impact makes the most sense. Fits with the witnesses "thermite" description and the ones that saw a plane.

With such a gigantic planned deception like that one it isn't unreasonable to suggest a small plane carrying damaged 757 parts to plant evidence.

Whatever the case the official version is the fantasy.

Here's another bit to argue...
http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/F-15.htm
... ever notice the flash of fire before the plane hits the WTC, or the black streak in the sky. If you'd taped the TV coverage watch it again for both of those.

I see damage Right at the ground floor on the right side at the edge of the collapsed section. I also see some damage to the left of the collapse around the ground floor. It's a low-res image, so it might be crappy compression, but it sure looks like impact marks to me.
There is not flash of fire. What you are seeing is the forward-looking radar from the planes' nosecones reflecting off the building and being picked up by the CCD in the camera. Point a TV remote at your camcorder or digital camera and you'll see the same effect. Point it at a wall from a short distance and you'll see the same effect.

I don't see an F-15 in that grainy, blurry video. It doesn't lend any credibility to your side that claims are made that the Pentagon video clearly shows that no plane hit, yet a shaky, grainy, blurry video from farther back is given as conclusive proof of the presence of something that wasn't there.

me either. in fact, just scale alone to me makes it not an F15 since it looks considerably larger than an F15 in context and relation to the towers.

OK so if it isn't an F15 what is it? A 50 foot bird? :eek:

Even mainstream media is wise to Dubya, though in the USA they wouldn't dare upset the boy king.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

Notice the explosives laden plane is mentioned a couple times... "In 1998 the US intelligence community receives information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center. In the fall of that same year, more information was uncovered that bin Laden’s next plot against U.S. involved explosive-laden aircraft and he was trying to establish a cell within the U.S."

So even if it was Arabs flying the planes it doesn't let Bush and cronies off the hook.

I don't know but it doesn't look like it was part of the ORIGINAL footage. It looks like there are extra artifacts that are present, not from footage.

In viewing the CNN coverage i can't make it out, i could in a film from another angle. What is very plainly visible is something firing out of the right side of the plane just before impact. It is not glare from the sun, it is very visible in other videos taken from behind (not this CNN shot though) but it shows here in the second view of the plane taken from the side, watch just after it goes behind the tip of that other building and before it hits WTC. Click onto full screen and you can replay it by pausing and moving the slidebar back.

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/...s.cnn.med.html

The black streak is clearly in the foreground. It can be seen traveling from top left to bottom right in front of the smoke, the buildings, on down. Something close and out of focus, probably a bird or bug.

I haven't seen footage of the flash.

What do you guys mean by an F-15? The only thing I can come up with is the WTC debris shooting off to the right, but that can be seen ejecting from the flames. The trajectory suggests maybe part of the jet.

As doubtful as I am about the official story of 9/11 by now, I just can't believe something other than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. It seems like a pretty big risk to fly some military plane (or, god forbid, an actual missile) into a building next to a highway with hundreds of cars passing a minute, then try to claim it was a 757. Why?

A single person in one of those cars who happened to have a camera rolling for some reason could have accidentally captured the whole event (noone did, sadly enough) and blown the whole setup. I don't think even the most crazy evil conspirator would take a risk like that.

It has been suggested that the "no-plane" stories are actually misinformation by the conspirators, the military-occult complex, etc. That may seem paranoid but it does look to me like a lot of misguided effort has been aimed at these kinds of theories that only serve to muddy the waters of the whole debate, and provide excellent chance for mainstream media to further marginalize the believers among us.

I mean, every time 9/11 conspiracies come up in the mainstream, it's almost always about the "a missile hit the pentagon" or "the planes that struck the WTC were holograms" stories; almost never about the real meaty questions like "why in the blue fuck did WTC 7 collapse as it did" and "why the hell weren't any of the planes intercepted by fighter jets".

Don't get hung up on that silliness, people. A lot of weird things happened that day but I'm pretty sure there weren't any missiles or holograms involved.

Maybe Jack Ruby did it! :thumbsup:

I swore off this thread, mostly due to an old truism about arguing over the internet that's not fit for mixed company. However, I felt the need to jump back in the fray, because this :

is patently false. The engines, like most the rest of the plane, were designed to be as lightweight as possible. The only exception to that is the landing gear, because it has to withstand multiple impacts against the ground and hold up an object that weighs over a hundred tons (that's short tons, although it also weighs over a hundred metric tonnes if you want to nitpick). In fact, the largest part of the engine is simply a gigantic shroud; the main volume of the engine is all air. It would be oversimplifying to say that a turbofan is just a big kerosene lamp, but probably not by as much as you'd think.

The most dense part of the engine would be either the compressor core or the turbine core; both of them are essentially giant metal cones. These are buried within the engine, underneath the fan shroud and the jet housing - plenty of stuff around them to deform and absorb a nice chunk of the impact energy. I don't know all of the exact details, but I know modern engines are built primarily out of titanium, not for it's strength but rather it's lightness. Titanium is very strong in relatively light quantities, meaning that a titanium engine can be built lighter than a steel or aluminum one. Titanium is also highly resistant to corrosion, which makes it a good choice to extend service life of the engines - the fan blades don't decay like steel blades would, meaning the engine can go longer between rebuilds.

The engines are not the most dense part of the plane. The landing struts are. And we know exactly where the nosegear went, since it punched a nice big hole through three of the Pentagon's rings. I don't know what happened to the two main struts since I wasn't on scene and didn't see any of the debris first-hand, but it's worth noting that they are mounted in the main fuselage under the wing spars. By the time they reached the walls of the building, 100 tons of deforming and disintegrating aluminum and steel in front of them had absorbed the greater portion of the plane's kinetic energy. Just like it did for the engines.

I tend to agree with Jacob Rubenstein that wild theories make doubters of people that otherwise wouldn't be.

Holograms is totally silly, there were jets roaring loudly into those buildings. I do think they maybe fired small missiles first to ensure maximum damage. Perhaps they were rigged with explosives too. They may have been remotely controlled, and maybe not the original planes that left the airports.

But aside from that the collapses of ALL the buildings, lack of response and destruction of evidence is pretty suspicious.

PDF:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/attachm...8&d=1145818794

This is one of my term papers on 9/11 consipracies. I explain how the collapses happened, why some of the "inconsistencies" are actually quite consistent, and how the official version fits perfectly fine.

That is still very theoretical. It assumes some things that aren't really known. It kind of uses the evidence that only fits the outcome. Did you set out to prove HOW the towers fell or to prove that they fell without help of explosives?

The part about Tower 7 is a wild theory. Video exists of it's fall and all is quiet and calm until the sudden collapse.

Another issue is the idea that one floor impacting another and so and, and so on will fall the way it did. Video plainly shows it just dropping like a rock, not bam-bam-bam 80 times like it should have. How do you explain the concrete becoming fine dust instead of much larger chunks?

the same way that when I tossed an empty glass fifth of gin from a 35 story window, when I got to the bottom, it was fine glass powder almost like caster sugar. it did nothing but fall straight down, nothing else "crushed" it but it's own impact and terminal velocity.

Concrete and steel > glass. Consider also that he glass is falling through the air with only the resistence of the air. The building collapsed into it's footprint, meaning that there should have been a great deal of massive, steel reinforced resistence the whole way down. Despite that, the building came down all at once, and in a time that's comparable to free fall speeds. It's a bit of a noddle scratcher.

I'll try to address eveyone's points and such as soon as I can, but this thread is surprisingly draining on me.

Speaking strictly in terms of the "powderized" concrete, that same massive steel reinfocement that you mentioned would also add to the energy being released as the structure collapsed. The upper floors would have been relatively entact (as seen by the upper levels of the debris pile that had to be lifted out by crane), but the lower floors were basically crushed by the falling concrete (as seen by the fact that the bottom of the debris pile was moved with shovels). If you drop one 5 story concrete building onto an identical 5 story concrete building from a 10 story height (total of 20 stories), there would be no debate that portions of the lower building would be crushed to powder. That's the kind of energy release that went on in the collapse.

This just happened this morning, supposedly from natural gas. 4 Stories tall, no steel to bend or melt.

Take a good look at the center column....along the front and back, and all along the sides at the top. You can see how charges were placed at an angle (just as in controlled demolition) around it's perimeter to effectively shear the column. Makes you wonder if the two firemen in the pic aren't really posing CIA agents just controlling the scene. They do look immaculately clean given the environment they are "working" in... even their gloves.

-------------------------------------------------------------
"In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman's helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite," says Bollyn.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/a...6thermite1.jpg

taken from here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...icanalysis.htm

also...Where's all the gold???

There appear to be no reports of precious metals discovered between November of 2001 and the completion of excavation several months later aside from 200 or so million o9f the rumored billions. It would seem that at least the better part of a billion dollars worth of precious metals went missing. Rumors go as high as 160 billion. It is not plausible that whatever destroyed the towers vaporized gold and silver, which are dense, inert metals that are extremely unlikely to participate in chemical reactions with other materials.

Gold is an element you can not destroy it very easily. Were the the WTC fires so hot to split and vaporize gold atoms?!?!?!

Why is is that out of the two black boxes on flight 11 neither of them were ever found but Satam al-Suqami's passport (alleged terrorist on that plane) which is mere paper, was recovered in tact.

Oh my....really now...come on already...

That angle cut column is the most damning evidence i've seen of the WTC. It would explain why the whole tower fell. Skeptics will claim it's from the rescue effort but they would not cut the column at such a sharp angle just to get it out of the way.

It would sure seem it benefitted many of the cronies. Somebody gets the gold, others get lucrative military contracts. As for CIA agents i'm not too sure they'd even want to involve them, but they may be some sort of plants. For sure the investigation wasn't too objective.

Here is a link to a new, (dated June 27, '06) 6+ minutes flash video that "validates" the physical evidence and the official story of the approach and impact of a flight 77 animated airliner, flying into the pentagon.

It seems to be a technical demonstation of flash capabilities of the firm that created it, as much as it is about the subject that it "covers". I am always curious about the interest and the effor that goes into elaborate "debunking" of the official line. As it the official "story" needs an assist, now and again, from just any J6P among us. I just don't know what compells anyone to put much time or energy into defending the status quo....but I see the effort expended here, with an enthusiasm and energy that is at least equal to say....willravel's interest and effort in questioning what our government told us happened on 9/11.

Ohhh....here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdj...6fedb5a4cb7f4a

I'll throw out a challenge to any "debunker" who reads this.
Please direct us to any first hand, official reference or news report of hijackers armed with "box cutters" that does not originate from CNN reporting of what U.S. Solicitor General (the title he held on 9/11), Theodore Olson, alledgedly told his acquaintance who worked at CNN. In the midst of his grief, just 13 hours after suddenly losing his wife, CNN commentator and author of the just published "hate book" targeting Hillary, in the "crash" of Flt. 77, Olson was able to alert us to the following:
....and here is Mr. Olson, less than 6 months later, acting as the adminstration's chief lawyer in civil matters before the court:
Here is Olson's background....if you were involved in orchestrating or enabling the 9/11 attacks, and one item on your agenda was to relieve the U.S. government or the airports or the airlines from exposure to potential litigation based on allegations that lax airport security enabled hijackers to smuggle weapons onto airliners hijacked on 9/11, wouldn't it be a coup to have the highest U.S. official. the man in charge of defending the U.S. government in all civil matters.....be the "witness" to the revelation that the hijackers gained control of at least one airliner by brandishing only "weapons" permitted to be carried, under FAA rules....in this case, "box cutters"?

It takes a curious person, even to mount a defense of the official "line". I just can't understand how that curiousity can be channeled away from the coincidences and contradictions of the "official line", and still display enthusiasm driven research and posting effort. I mean...look at this guy....his background screams of his being the logical choice to spread the box cutter bullshit....c'mon...prove me wrong.
Defend the official story by posting another "box cutter as 9/11 weapons" source, besides Mr. Olson!
Olson seems likely to have perjured himself in his senate "confirmation as solicitor general", testimony.
I devoted half of a TFP Politics thread to a study of Ted Olson, a year ago:
<a href="http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:eFL-Fy1tmkMJ:flounder.tfproject.org/tfp/printthread.php%3Ft%3D92438+zarqawi+olson+tfp&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2"> Are Ted Olson and Al Zarqawi both "Supermen"?</a>
My point in last year's thread, is that, similarly to the way Zarqawi was reported to be involved in every violent insurgent incident...for 3 years, in Iraq, Ted Olson actually was involved in nearly every major republican controversy, and in litigation of key legal issues that republicans seem passionate about, over the last twenty years....affirmative action, Reagan's involvement in Iran-Contra the Arkansas Project "witch hunt" against the Clintons, the SCOTUS decision that awarded the POTUS to GW Bush, and....
the 9/11 "box cutter" story. It's a weak link, IMO, that still has the potential to come "undone".

I urge all "debunkers" who post here to defend the official 9/11 story, to shore up the Ted Olson story. It is perhaps the weakest link! I especially loved this classic reporting from "Ted's tale":
No report on that day provides a quote of Olson making any direct reference to his late wife, Barbara Olson....

From the 9/11 Commission report:

Threads like this make me question the belief that elected governments have long term viability.

I still don't understand how you can so easily dismiss the CIA run drills on 9/11 (at the exact time of the attacks) that depicted flying hijacked jet airplanes into buildings. Then have the 9/11 commission turn around and conclude that above all 9/11 was a failure of imagination. How do you not see a problem with that scenario?

Lets turn this around shall we?

If you were going to plan something is elaborate as this, would you run a drill on the same day?

But that being said, I am far more disappointed with the apparent manic nature of those who claim they were different aircraft which hit the buildings, ignoring all credible scientific analysis. Hell you would think that when a jet hit a building, it should make a cartoon like hole, and even then I don't think some people posting here would believe it.

I think its a combination of a lack of basic scientific education, gullibility, and paranoid distrust of authority that leads people to embrace such insanity. If I were a psychology doctoral candidate, I know what I'd be writing about for my P.h.D. thesis.

I will grant you that the possibility of 'who knew' should be investigated, it should be SOP when anything like this happens just to be sure, but when we start getting accounts of missiles, that its the wrong type of plane, that the WTC was really destroyed by bombs, we leave reality and enter someones paranoid dream where the weight of the evidence does not matter.

Is it possible that say Bush and Co had fore knowledge of the attack? Sure, they could have, that is possible and worthy of looking into. There are still people who think F.D.R. let Pearl Harbor happen (after all why weren't the carriers in port) so such thoughts are common in American history. It is possible because the number of people who knew about it would be very small, maybe only a couple. A small number of people can keep a secret. Most of these scenarios on the other hand would require 100's of people in on the plan, from the Airlines involved, the families of those involved, the men who would have planted these bombs that no one saw, the guys setting up the remote control aircraft, the experts which would have to be bribed, the eye witnesses who saw the event....well you get the idea. This administration can't keep top secret information out of the NYTimes but you think they could pull this off?

You don't need occam's razor to see the flaws in most of these scenarios, you need his safety scissors.

This is the evidence behind your quoted statement. First of all, the article claims that "There is substantial evidence... Evidence can be seen in this photo..." The evidence presented is that photograph. Then, out of left field, the claim is made at the end that "Experts who have viewed this photograph say that this column was not cut with a torch."

We have one piece of evidence that was examined by enigmatic, uncited, likely non-existant "experts" who say tht it was not cut wtih a torch. It looks to me like it was cut with a torch. Everything else in the picture lookes like snapped welds. How far into the cleanup process were they when this picture was taken?

I disagree. Sounds like you maybe haven't used a cutting torch,
it always blows the slag inwards by the very nature of the pressurized gasses being forced out of the torch. The only way you'd get much slag on the outside is if it wasn't cutting deep enough, and that doesn't look to be the case there. So unless some skinny fellow was inside the pillar...

But regardless of when it was taken what other rational excuse would there be for that pillar to be cut at that angle and height?



On the drills thing, what if the actual attacks were part of the planned drills?
The people that got flown into the buildings are sworn to secrecy now.

I always love people claim thermite was used but don’t understand thermite, termite burns Down and only Down, thermite is to hot to control and it only burns Down, you can not cut a vertical beam with thermite because it burns Down not across, it is to hot to channel, it is a gravity driven, self fueled, unstoppable beast. I can’t stress Down hard enough. Down, Down, Down.

A shaped charge could cut a vertical bean cleanly, but not thermite, seriously folks, learn your facts before you start talking about thermite

And for all of you that can use Google, yes there are ways to shape the direction of thermite, but not good ones, nothing to the scale that would be needed, as shown in this http://www.itep.ws/pdf/FOI_Rapport.pdf experiment to use thermite to detonate military ordinance. And it still dribbles out of the holder and can not make an angled cut such as that picture shows; thermite in 9/11 is Bunk.

Debunking the thermite myth:
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/thermite.htm
Thermite in general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
Thermite in specific:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chemica...mite_synthesis

FYI, thermite is DANGEROUS, please don’t experiment with it your self.

The CIA officers & agents in WTC 7 aren't talking either. A few more dead people would raise any suspicion.

And lots of people will go along with a plan if they think it is a drill. They might try to stop it if they knew what they were doing was real.

Then you post a link that show this?
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/capture7.jpg

How is that one explained? Are the rescue workers up there cutting the debris already? Is there a smelter in the WTC?

Maybe reading the link and not just looking at the pictures would help you understand it. And when you’re done reading the last link, read this one specifically on the flowing metal:

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm

Remember to read the article, not just the pictures.

By your logic, there is thermite in the roof of this car:
http://www.car.co.nz/images/performa...ey-crash-2.jpg

And thermite in this cars trunk:
http://www.ljworld.com/art/apps/penn...ocacola600.jpg

The stuff on the energy of the falling building creating enough heat to have steel chunks glowing hot weeks later is bizarre. :p
Certainly materials that were already on fire dropping into a big pit and the fire being fed by more flammables already down there could make it a big barbeque, that is logical.

The flowing metal out the 78th floor window would require pressurized oxygen or something similar before a jet fuel fire could be intense enough to melt it to a flowing condition. A simple fuel fire alone will not do that.

I work with melting aluminum and steel every day. I don't have a Spin Doctorate degree in it but throw the textbooks in that aluminum fire and observe it in actual practice.

to see this effect on a smaller scale, take a piece of metal, like a coat hanger and bend it back and forth in the same point until it breaks, then feel the tips, they will be very hot, when metal gets stressed, it heats up. Further, the debris would insolate the heat in the ground

There are plenty of exotic metals in an office building to start a nasty fire like we see falling from the window. Magnesium has a low ignition point, and burns extremely hot, hot enough to light aluminum and several other exotic metals. My computer case is magnesium aluminum alloy, when I was modding one of the face plates with a dremmel, it lit up, luckily I had a bucket of sand near and I was able to smother it. I think it could have come from a large UPS, large batteries contain loads of exotic metals. Lithium Ion batteries will ignite and explode when heated past 180C (lithium’s melting point) in a gorgeous display. Alkaline batteries contain magnesium, point is, and there are plenty of things that could cause that drip, besides thermite, which can’t be used to sever vertical beams anyways.

I would say it's really doubtful from that picture . Magnesium isn't pouring out of the WTC, it gets consumed, think fireworks. Looks like aluminum or lead or similar. Even if magnesium started it i can't imagine it making a fire getting to the point of flowing glowing metal out a window.

I don’t think magnesium is pouring either, I think I was a bit unclear. I am trying to show a method of generating the heat necessary to melt metal to such a degree that it can pour out of the building by showing that there are an abundance of reactive metals in a building that could ignite and melt other metals in a building such as lead or another metal with a low melting point, causing that flow, all without the need for thermite on vertical support beams.

As a side note, the ingredients for thermite are readily available in an office building too. But I want to show that thermite can not be used to sever vertical support beams, which was my initial objective.

On the other hand who's to say that cut beam behind the firefighter is still in it's original position? Maybe it was a horizontal or angled beam? The building did collapse.

Thermite is a more logical explanation for the collapse than the other theories... and i say 'theories' since it doesn't appear anybody knows the truth.

thermite is the lamest 'theory' if you are going to collapse a building. Personally I do think the fire from the planes caused the collapse, but even if I was to bring a building down, thermite is not the way. a shaped charges is the way to go. thermite is very random, its hard to use and it only burns down, making it useless for severing virtical support girders. A shaped charge would be able to cut through the girder as shown, and be set off with control. In my younger and foolish years I played with thermite, aluminum powder, rust, and Sulpher to bind it. It is chaotic and uncontrollable, once set it burns straight down.

I don’t understand your fascination with thermite, it’s not what you think it is. If this was a huge setup, they would use industry standards to collapse it, not thermite.

I wouldn't say it was thermite, i only think it wasn't the fire that collapsed it.

Tomorrow, Saturday July 29th at 8 PM EST, C-span will be airing the American Scholars Symposium 9/11 truth conference that was held in L.A. I think it is great news that C-span is actually covering a topic like this. One of the highlights of the show that I hope they air was William Rodriguez's speech. He was one of the last people pulled from the buildings and still has one of a couple master keys to the complex. Here's a couple more of the speakers: James Fetzer, BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones, President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., Filmmaker and Radio Broadcaster Alex Jones, and Terrorism Expert Webster Tarpley, and actor Charlie Sheen.

Here's an article about it C-Span Airing Of L.A. Conference Shows Mainstreaming Of 9/11 Truth

Anyway, thought I'd pass that along.

Thank you samcol!! I admit I've been taking a break from this for a bit, but I will watch with great interest!

Terrorism Expert.... Webster Tarpley

As I often do, I check a random person in such 'events'

Everything I found on this guy pointed to 'batshit insane' not 'terrorism expert', unless you think the terrorists are some secret organization that has taken over the US government. In that case I refer you to the 'batshit insane' observation.

Without looking at anyone else I am going to assume all these people are moonbats, and there will be no real debate or debunking, just batshit insane people with their personal illogical theories.

You sound as though these people are personally endangering your life by simply gathering and discussing 9/11.

You should see what was said in this thread's counterpart in Politics. People were doing everything they could to get the thing closed or moved to Paranoia.

Well I can't see how you would gather that from my statement. Of course I might be an agent such as Tarpley states, and I have been accused of by another member of TFP. If I am exposed I will executed as a precaution by my superiors to ensure I do not expose the New World Order (tm), so perhaps you are not too far off base.

'AHHHHHHH RUN FOR YOUR LIVES, PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT 9/11!!!!!!1111'

That almost seems like the mentality sometimes when trying to rationally discuss the topic, which is why having the conference shown on c-span is so great. We can get the other 9/11 views on the table in a public format without a Shawn Hannity or O'rly shouting 'SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP, YOU"RE INSANE' for 15 minutes while the 9/11 guest is just sitting their calmly trying to get their points across.

I give Ustwo credit though, at least he's in these kinds of threads discussing the topics and looking at the alternative information even if he doesn't come to the same conclustion as you or I do.

Note the highlighted word. I am all for rational discussion, but this is in paranoia for a reason. No amount of rational or scientific information will sway a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Its one unsupported and then refuted claim after another. Its comical when I see this about crop circles, its depressing when I see it about something that cost so many lives and will cost more in the future. Focusing energy on shadows when the enemy is already known is foolhardy and weakens our ability to prevent future attacks.

You consider yourself rational because you believe the party line? I don't find it rational at all to believe even half of those very unlikely scenarios that played out that day.