# Fuck 9/11 conspiracy theorists... for not going far enough.



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Jan 24, 2009)

I'm not going to weigh in on this debate one way or the other, there's so much misinformation and general shit-flinging... I don't believe it was a conspiracy, but I'm not going to rant on about just how misguided those that do are.

What I REALLY DON'T GET, however, is why the FUCK the crowd who believes that "Bush did it" weren't out there shooting people and burning down buildings!? If someone honestly has come to the definite conclusion that their government is pulling some vast fascist conspiracy to enhance its powers and wealth at the cost of thousands of citizens' lives, why are they just standing there making angry blog posts and not out there "voting from the rooftops"?

What scares me to think of isn't the patently bullshit theory that somehow the government was responsible - it's the fact that the people who seemed utterly convinced that this was the case didn't have the guts to do anything, and how that reflects on what would happen if, God forbid, some time in the future a REAL tyrant were to arise? 

I only hope that day never comes, because in that event people who speak out against it would be marginalised as "nutcases" too...


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 24, 2009)

Good point...


----------



## Tiger (Jan 24, 2009)

Haha, this is why I dont blame the government for things any more. And I  to kids who complain incessantly about the government because they listen to Anti-flag but still pay taxes.

Most of my close friends were shocked that I wanted to join the military because Ive been reading Chomsky since I was a boy and my favorite band is Rage Against the Machine. Ive always been critical of the government, especially as a youth. But dude, if you're a tax paying citizen you're just as much in league with the man as any politician. 

Forget 9/11. People should have outed Bush for lying and murdering, something thats actually proven. But we didnt, so stop complaining.


----------



## garthfluff (Jan 24, 2009)

To be honest, with some of the shit thats going on in the UK at the moment we should be in the streets rioting. The US looks to be making a clean break and the future is looking bright for them. Us however, we're on an increasingly slippery slope into a 1984 existence.


----------



## arktan (Jan 24, 2009)

garthfluff said:


> To be honest, with some of the shit thats going on in the UK at the moment we should be in the streets rioting. The US looks to be making a clean break and the future is looking bright for them. Us however, we're on an increasingly slippery slope into a 1984 existence.



Looks like you guys are not the only ones who'll have to fight against the oppressing surveillance. At least there will be Victory Gin for everyone.


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Jan 24, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Haha, this is why I dont blame the government for things any more. And I  to kids who complain incessantly about the government because they listen to Anti-flag but still pay taxes.
> 
> Most of my close friends were shocked that I wanted to join the military because Ive been reading Chomsky since I was a boy and my favorite band is Rage Against the Machine. Ive always been critical of the government, especially as a youth. But dude, if you're a tax paying citizen you're just as much in league with the man as any politician.
> 
> Forget 9/11. People should have outed Bush for lying and murdering, something thats actually proven. But we didnt, so stop complaining.



It wasn't that I give a fuck about the 9/11 business, it's more that the people who were convinced that it was the government's doing just seemed to sit back there and say "Eh, whatever" and post youtube videos... which scares me as to what people's reaction would be if a truly oppressive government did come to power. Most likely, it would be the same... 



arktan said:


> Looks like you guys are not the only ones who'll have to fight against the oppressing surveillance. At least there will be Victory Gin for everyone.



Heh, I was in a shisha cafe/bar kind of thing called the Chestnut Tree in Plymouth a month or so ago... of course I had to order a G&T naturally!

The other hilarious part was that there was a council CCTV camera on the wall outside watching the street, and someone had written 
"WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" below it...


----------



## arktan (Jan 24, 2009)

2 + 2 equals 5

But it's really scary how many CCTV's you guys have over there in Airstrip 1.


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Jan 24, 2009)

arktan said:


> 2 + 2 equals 5
> 
> But it's really scary how many CCTV's you guys have over there in Airstrip 1.








Yeah, those are actual posters which the Government put up in London...


----------



## S-O (Jan 24, 2009)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> Yeah, those are actual posters which the Government put up in London...



Damn, I'd shit myself. Our airports have become a nightmare, but comparing that to shit like those posters is makes me feel like we have it pretty nice.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 24, 2009)

Oh the Irony... Orwell was right...

Will we be having Two Minutes' Hate against the Arab terrorist monsters who hate us or will the Chinese be the new uniting threat?


----------



## silentrage (Jan 24, 2009)

V for Vendetta anyone?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 24, 2009)

silentrage said:


> V for Vendetta anyone?



Check out George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four. A lot of V For Vendetta was lifted straight from it (not to say that V isn't awesome ).


----------



## chimp_spanner (Jan 24, 2009)

garthfluff said:


> To be honest, with some of the shit thats going on in the UK at the moment we should be in the streets rioting. The US looks to be making a clean break and the future is looking bright for them. Us however, we're on an increasingly slippery slope into a 1984 existence.



So true. And the worrying thing is that with this financial crisis, everyone has taken their eye off the ball. We're all too concerned with meeting the basic needs of day to day life to pay any attention to the erosion of our civil liberties. How many people in the UK know (or care) that it's now mandatory for every major ISP to keep details of every email sent and received by every person? And that this information can be accessed without any kind of warrant? And that (as far as I know) this extends to mobile phone communications too. Guilty until proven innocent eh?

And how about the MP who was arrested by an anti terrorism unit for whistleblowing immigration data that the government was keeping from the public? That dropped off the news radar quickly. And it's set a dangerous precident: speak up, and risk public humiliation. So what if no harm came to him? The experience of having your materials seized and your name attached to some implication of criminal action would be enough to keep most MP's quiet. 

It seems the lines are being redrawn so insidiously as to what constitutes an 'offence'. Where's it all going?


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Jan 24, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Oh the Irony... Orwell was right...
> 
> Will we be having Two Minutes' Hate against the Arab terrorist monsters who hate us or will the Chinese be the new uniting threat?



We were always at war with (middle)Eastasia.

That said, the Daily Mail _is_ pretty much the Two Minutes' Hate...


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 24, 2009)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> We were always at war with (middle)Eastasia.
> 
> That said, the Daily Mail _is_ pretty much the Two Minutes' Hate...



I thought we were at war with Eurasia? 

Er... I mean, 2 + 2 = 5... yeah...


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 25, 2009)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> We were always at war with (middle)Eastasia.
> 
> That said, the Daily Mail _is_ pretty much the Two Minutes' Hate...



Not to derail the conversation or anything, but....

Does the above comment not make it seem like media are just as responsible (if not more so) than any Government? I can't help the feeling that many Governments would react the way they do to so many social circumstances if the media weren't so intent on piledriving opinions into our poor squishy brains. Why the hell do people even read newspapers anymore? I know people that skip the national news on TV and instead watch current affairs programs that "report" on "shifty con artists" "fatty teenagers" and "the right bra for you!".

Just saying, it's hard to hold the Government accountable when the people supposed to report on what they do aren't paying attention.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 25, 2009)

garthfluff said:


> To be honest, with some of the shit thats going on in the UK at the moment we should be in the streets rioting. The US looks to be making a clean break and the future is looking bright for them. Us however, we're on an increasingly slippery slope into a 1984 existence.



Wait, what? You think we're making a clean break? How, through Obama? 

You have much to learn. 



E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> why are they just standing there making angry blog posts and not out there "voting from the rooftops" ?



I'll give you my reason why I'm not out "voting from the rooftops"...

My voice wouldn't do shit right now. It doesn't do shit, because I really can't convince the people around me of the reality of our situation. And I'm not going to go off on my own to be a useless martyr that everyone will think is just a crazy with a gun who doesn't like the government. 

Consider it like war. I'm at war with my government. I don't want to lose that war. So I strategize. If a battle will cause me to lose the war, I avoid it.


----------



## auxioluck (Jan 25, 2009)

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 25, 2009)

estabon37 said:


> Does the above comment not make it seem like media are just as responsible (if not more so) than any Government?



The media is thoroughly involved in what the governments do. They don't under-report governmental actions by accident. 



auxioluck said:


> There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.



Although I normally enjoy Maddox's ramblings, I find that article to be thoroughly stupid.



E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> What scares me to think of isn't the patently bullshit theory that somehow the government was responsible - it's the fact that the people who seemed utterly convinced that this was the case didn't have the guts to do anything, and how that reflects on what would happen if, God forbid, some time in the future a REAL tyrant were to arise?
> 
> I only hope that day never comes, because in that event people who speak out against it would be marginalised as "nutcases" too...



I did some more thinking on this point... And I've come to the conclusion that while I can't get the people around me to fully grasp what's actually going down, most of the people with which I associate will rise to action if some big shit goes down. Like my cousin. He's on the side of terrorism being real, but he's also acutely aware of the erosion of freedoms in this country... And he's got a HUGE fucking arsenal of high-power weaponry. My other family members and I refer to his place as "the military fortress". I feel very safe there, for some reason.


----------



## mustang-monk (Jan 26, 2009)

someone who took a law and terrorism module that im doing at uni last year, got taken away by the police and "fell and broke his leg" in the process. To be fair he was trying to contact pakistani militants and terrorist training camps so he was pretty stupid, also this is bradford so ....


----------



## zimbloth (Jan 26, 2009)

Great point (original post).



The Atomic Ass said:


> Although I normally enjoy Maddox's ramblings, I find that article to be thoroughly stupid.



How _dare you_ question Maddox?! He's never been wrong about anything, ever


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 26, 2009)

zimbloth said:


> Great point (original post).
> 
> 
> 
> How _dare you_ question Maddox?! He's never been wrong about anything, ever



Even pirates can be fucking stupid when they're drunk.


----------



## garthfluff (Jan 26, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Wait, what? You think we're making a clean break? How, through Obama?
> 
> You have much to learn.



Not saying everything is going to be perfect for you guys (glass half full anyone?) but it's a shit heap better than what you had before.


----------



## JakeRI (Jan 26, 2009)

the reason we werent out killing bush is because we need to build enough support. They have fema camps set up for those who disobey. and its way bigger than 9/11

and as far as how people feel about 9/11 most people will call people who believe it was an inside job because thats what mass media tells us. But even if all you believe is that yeah, the US knew it was going to happen, then that makes it an inside job.

and why kill bush? more violence? is that the answer? most people involved with the 9/11 truth movement just want freedom and peace. 

Dr. Martin Luther King had so many reasons to kill whites (the group oppressing him), but did he? No.


----------



## Zoltta (Jan 26, 2009)

Not saying i believe in this conspiracy thing but what proof do we have that terrorist did it? Because of what some guy told you over the TV? Have they given us hard evidence? All the people on those planes are dead and everything is destroyed, we dont have anyone to tell us the truth. Im not trying to sound ignorant but there is more proof from conspiracy theorists imo than there is from our own government from what ive read and watched. 

Again not taking sides here, all i know is alot of people died and everything is fucked up


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Jan 26, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> Not saying i believe in this conspiracy thing but what proof do we have that terrorist did it? Because of what some guy told you over the TV? Have they given us hard evidence? All the people on those planes are dead and everything is destroyed, we dont have anyone to tell us the truth. Im not trying to sound ignorant but there is more proof from conspiracy theorists imo than there is from our own government from what ive read and watched.
> 
> Again not taking sides here, all i know is alot of people died and everything is fucked up



We have a pretty good idea that the planes were hijacked by someone, terrorists or not... I don't know.

Remember that Bin Laden and the Mujahideen were CIA backed... if there was a 9/11 conspiracy, Occam's Razor says that we put them up to doing it. No vast conspiracy required, and the people who know who's behind it all died in the plane crashes... absolutely perfect.

That said, it's impossible to tell and, IMO, pointless to discuss. The conspiracy theory BS that pisses me off is the "there was a bomb in the towers! / nukes, lasers, satellites, holograms, there was no plane, a missile hit the pentagon, etcetera" crap... it's all so ridiculously overcomplicated for something that could have been done far more simply!


----------



## Randy (Jan 26, 2009)

Glenn Beck is an asshole.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 26, 2009)

garthfluff said:


> Not saying everything is going to be perfect for you guys (glass half full anyone?) but it's a shit heap better than what you had before.



No it's not. Obama is the same as Bush, just in more friendly packaging.


----------



## Randy (Jan 26, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> No it's not. Obama is the same as Bush, just in more friendly packaging.





That's why he's keeping Guantanamo Bay, and all those secret European CIA interrogation facilities open.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 26, 2009)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> That said, it's impossible to tell and, IMO, pointless to discuss. The conspiracy theory BS that pisses me off is the "there was a bomb in the towers! / nukes, lasers, satellites, holograms, there was no plane, a missile hit the pentagon, etcetera" crap... it's all so ridiculously overcomplicated for something that could have been done far more simply!



Which is exactly why it doesn't matter whether it was planes or jet fuel or bombs... It doesn't matter if I stabbed someone, shot them, or strangled them with my bare hands, I'd still be guilty of murder.

I really wish these people with theories would get a grip and focus on the issue at hand, that is dealing with the aftermath. They've essentially declared war, and how are we responding?



Randy said:


> That's why he's keeping Guantanamo Bay, and all those secret European CIA interrogation facilities open.



He might. The political posturing might be worth it. Guantanamo is just a farce anyway, otherwise it wouldn't be all over the news every day.


----------



## troyguitar (Jan 26, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I'll give you my reason why I'm not out "voting from the rooftops"...
> 
> My voice wouldn't do shit right now. It doesn't do shit...


----------



## Randy (Jan 26, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> He might. The political posturing might be worth it. Guantanamo is just a farce anyway, otherwise it wouldn't be all over the news every day.



Neg. 

The Bush administration was just detaining people in such volume, and for the most convoluted of reasons that they were running out of top secret places to hide them. Some asshole kid with a model rocket and a camera could've seen the crap they've been up to, they were so blatant about it.

The point is... the CIA and various agencies have been doing things like unlawful detention or torture of some sort forever. Sure, we all know that. However, the volume and lack of discretion has been at 'near war-crimes' level for too long. Institutionalized and legalized acceptance of torture or suspension of a universal right to habeas corpus has ruined our reputation around the world. 

And BTW... who's he posturing toward, may I ask?


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 26, 2009)

Randy said:


> Neg.
> 
> The Bush administration was just detaining people in such volume, and for the most convoluted of reasons that they were running out of top secret places to hide them. Some asshole kid with a model rocket and a camera could've seen the crap they've been up to, they were so blatant about it.
> 
> ...



I meant he might close Guantanamo for political posturing. It's always good to boisterously do something good while silently doing something bad. 

The volume of unlawful doings by various government and private entities in this country has remained fairly stable, it's just that they're getting bolder and being more open about their crimes. It's not that they're upping their quotas or anything. 

And fuck our reputation around the world.  It doesn't matter, because no one in power in any other country would have our reputation any other way. We are not a bastion of corruption standing alone in a pure world.


----------



## JakeRI (Jan 27, 2009)

Randy said:


> Neg.
> 
> The Bush administration was just detaining people in such volume, and for the most convoluted of reasons that they were running out of top secret places to hide them. Some asshole kid with a model rocket and a camera could've seen the crap they've been up to, they were so blatant about it.
> 
> ...



you should read the actually documents. He ordered the INVESTIGATION of tactics and gitmo. he didnt order the closing of any of them. and in a years time we will all have forgotten. 

obama has the same foreign policy as bush.


----------



## Randy (Jan 27, 2009)

Um, the opening words of the document read:



EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANT&#193 said:


> By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guant&#225;namo Bay Naval Base (&#8220;Guant&#225;namo&#8221 and promptly to *close the detention facilities at Guant&#225;namo*, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:



and



Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guant&#225 said:


> *The detention facilities at Guant&#225;namo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order*. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guant&#225;namo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.



...and it goes on from there.


----------



## JakeRI (Jan 27, 2009)

Randy said:


> Um, the opening words of the document read:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



my bad, i mixed it up for the review of the detainees.

either way though, the constitution doesn't grant presidential executive orders to be granted. obama concerns me mainly on the bigger issues, like the same type of foreign policy as bush, just arranging it a little differently


----------



## arktan (Jan 28, 2009)

Shouldn't you guys wait and see what he'll do instead of judging right now?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 28, 2009)

arktan said:


> Shouldn't you guys wait and see what he'll do instead of judging right now?



Agreed. Shitflinging this early is a bit stupid and pointless to be honest.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 28, 2009)

arktan said:


> Shouldn't you guys wait and see what he'll do instead of judging right now?



No. 



ZeroSignal said:


> Agreed. Shitflinging this early is a bit stupid and pointless to be honest.



But, we like shitflinging. It's our nation's pastime.


----------



## garthfluff (Jan 28, 2009)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> Yeah, those are actual posters which the Government put up in London...



They creep the fuck out of me.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 25, 2009)

the original post contradicts itself.



> I'm not going to rant on about just how misguided those that do are.





> the people who seemed utterly convinced that this was the case didn't have the guts to do anything, and how that reflects on what would happen if, God forbid, some time in the future a REAL tyrant were to arise?



you only feel comfortable saying this because you don't believe the conspiracy, but would you display the bravery that you speak of if you did? I don't think so buddy.


----------



## Mattayus (Mar 25, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> the original post contradicts itself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I'm not entirely sure I see your point there. It's not quite a contradiction, but I sort of get what you mean.

In any event, conspiracy theorists are the most annoying forms of life on earth. I can't stand people who read a few books written by a sensationalist Manson wannabe, and all of a sudden it's the bible. You can't have a normal conversation without them going "ah yes, but did you know..."

I've done my time, i've been there when I was about 16, at an age where I thought I understood everything, and gaining knowledge on erroneous event-twistings made me feel deep and interesting 

I do have a certain soft spot for Michael Moore, though, even if he is a total sensationalist himself. He can put spin on absolutely anything and make it look sinister, but i think there's something about his cockiness I love.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 25, 2009)

it's a clear attack on people who believe the 9/11 conspiracy - "Fuck 9/11 conspiracy theorists" - what a wanker. just because he doesn't believe the conspiracy doesn't mean he can indirectly trash the opinions of others. he's basically saying that believers of the conspiracy should've rioted and turned the Western World on it's head. easy for him to say.


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Mar 25, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> it's a clear attack on people who believe the 9/11 conspiracy - "Fuck 9/11 conspiracy theorists" - what a wanker. just because he doesn't believe the conspiracy doesn't mean he can indirectly trash the opinions of others. he's basically saying that believers of the conspiracy should've rioted and turned the Western World on it's head. easy for him to say.



And what's wrong with saying that!?

Disregarding all the obvious shit that puts opinions on a conspiracy to shame... all the talk about fake planes, missiles, bombs, ray guns, miniature nukes, and a ton and a half of other bullshit I've seen being put about... because this isn't a discussion about the validity or lack thereof of a government conspiracy, I just think that if someone truly believes that their government has killed thousands of its own citizens in order to further a totalitarian agenda and enlarge their personal profits and that of their corporate associates, it's really fucking telling that all that people who believe that have tried to do about it is post Youtube videos and make shitty web pages. I don't personally believe it, and I don't even live in the USA anyway, so I'm not being hypocritical in the slightest.

It also gives me a bad feeling about what would happen if sometime in the future a real totalitarian regime was to come to power.


----------



## Fionn (Mar 25, 2009)

> In any event, conspiracy theorists are the most annoying forms of life on earth. I can't stand people who read a few books written by a sensationalist Manson wannabe, and all of a sudden it's the bible.



but don't you just hate people that take what the mass media tells them as fact just as much, I do. Don't get me wrong not ever thing thats ever happened is a "conspiracy" but how the fook do we really know what goes on? I personnally would prefer to have at least both sides of a story if not as many angles as possible, not just what i'm "told to believe". Yeah I agree there are many people that go WAY over the top with "conspriacys" etc but, to be completly in denial and in some cases agressive (E Lucevan Le Stelle) towards people who "believe" is equally annoying if not a little scary! Talk about oppression of freedom of speech!

In the case of 9/11 some things just seem a little wierd and thats what fuels the conspiracy, i.e. for me it all dosn't quite add up, for one how the FOOK did two off course planes last that long in the air? thats if they were even "commercial airlines". surely the military would have scrambled some fighters to escort them or even shoot them down? and the whole bin ladens being backed by the CIA! WTF if that dosn't scream "conspiracy" what the fook does!!!

and the reason people who "believe" don't go crazy with an sniper rifle, err they have the common sense not too, like they have the common sense to always question the "system" and its "controllers", and anyway what the fook is killing a few cops or poiliticians gonna solve anyway, they probaly know less that "we" do! and it would just give the "anit terror" laws more ammo!!!

if it is as bad as some people "believe" it is, we're already FOOKED!!!



> It also gives me a bad feeling about what would happen if sometime in the future a real totalitarian regime was to come to power.



tbh i don't think there is much we can do, especially in th UK they have all the guns!!! yeah sure i'm pretty handy (so i'd like to think) but that aint gonna do shit against "the law"!!!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 25, 2009)

> Disregarding all the obvious shit that puts opinions on a conspiracy to shame



there you go again, trashing other people's opinions because it's not what you believe.

I'm with Fionn on this one, OTT conspiracy theorists do my head in just as much as the next guy, but there are people out there who believe them without trying to push it in people's faces or cramming as many counter-arguments into political debates as possible.

@ Lucevan: how do you know there aren't people in USA trying to get people to change what they think is morally unjust? I guarantee you they're not just campaining on the internet, the internet is just a very useful tool. you're only speaking about what you see on the internet because you don't live in the USA and really you don't have a fucking clue what is going on over there, it's far too easy for you to say this seeing as you're seperated from the 'blame' as it were, because you don't believe it. 

I don't even want to neg rep you, I'm just really disappointed that you could be so extremely ignorant.


----------



## Mattayus (Mar 25, 2009)

Fionn said:


> but don't you just hate people that take what the mass media tells them as fact just as much



Oh yeah man, sure! I'm by no means the sort of person who takes media politics on face value. I mean some people think I'm Satan himself for not having my son vaccinated, but it's because I'm extremely well read on the subject and know it's dangerous and completely un-beneficial to have done so. Unlike, ironically, the people scowling at me - who have just taken their kids to get it done because they got a letter from the doctors, who they trust whole-heartedly without a shadow of a doubt.

I just think you need to do your research on anything before striking down an adverse opinion. I hate conspirators who just love the sensationalism of it all and get a bit carried away.

To be honest, the only good to have come of the 9/11 conspiracy is that it took some of the attention off of the Muslim faith. In the UK Muslims became free game for racial discrimination, prejudice, and physical violence. They're slagged off in the press even, and slanderous remarks are frequently made about the Quar'an and its "secret instructions" and all that jazz. I'm glad for the most part that the conspiracies doused that fire, at least for the time being.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 25, 2009)

whenever something bad happens ppl just feel the need to point fingers whether they know what the hell they're talking about or not... i think that's more or less the long and short of it... and who better to blame than the government since we pay them taxes basically in exchange for "keeping us safe"... they lead the country and if something goes wrong it's natural for the majority of ppl (i think it's important to also note that the majority of earth's population isn't the best n brightest group of folks) to just point the finger at them since they're the most readily available scapegoat... btw... i am in no way, shape or form agreeing with or trying to justify this way of thinking... just trying to "understand" it... 



Mattayus said:


> I'm not entirely sure I see your point there. It's not quite a contradiction, but I sort of get what you mean.
> 
> In any event, conspiracy theorists are the most annoying forms of life on earth. I can't stand people who read a few books written by a sensationalist Manson wannabe, and all of a sudden it's the bible. You can't have a normal conversation without them going "ah yes, but did you know..."
> 
> ...


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 25, 2009)

it's not about 'blaming the easiest target', it's about seeing what makes the most sense with the evidence given.

looking really far into conspiracies is obviously biased, looking really far into the counter-conspiracy is biased and complete ignorance... all these things are not to be trusted.

research the evidence from all sides and decide for yourself, but for god's sake don't trash the opinions of the people who believe what you don't believe when no-one knows for sure. after all, conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if they could be disproved.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 25, 2009)

i dunno who that was aimed at man but i was in no way shape or form tryina disagree w/ u and perhaps i should have been more selective in chosing what parts of that passage to quote... but what's done is done... i was more or less just trying to say that when ppl don't know the answer to something they just make someting up that makes sense in their mind and then try to set it in stone and gain followers... it happens all the time... basically any religious text is someone making up what they think happened because they dont know... and that gains just as many followers as conspiracy theories we just categorize it differently...


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 25, 2009)

+1 on the 'we don't know so we made it up' idea. I think it's completely valid that people think 9/11 was Taliban and I think it's completely valid that people think 9/11 was the Government. I know which one I believe, although I'd love to know that I'm wrong. I guess some people just want the truth so they can be sure either way, when we're fed so much shit by the government and the media and often one through the other, you can't blame us for wanting to know what's *REALLY* going on


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 25, 2009)

agreed whole-heartedly



Zoltta said:


> Not saying i believe in this conspiracy thing but what proof do we have that terrorist did it? Because of what some guy told you over the TV? Have they given us hard evidence? All the people on those planes are dead and everything is destroyed, we dont have anyone to tell us the truth. Im not trying to sound ignorant but there is more proof from conspiracy theorists imo than there is from our own government from what ive read and watched.
> 
> Again not taking sides here, all i know is alot of people died and everything is fucked up




it's absolutely certain a terrorist did it... anyone who hijacks a plane and deliberately crashes it is a terrorist... especially if they crash it into the freakin' world trade center...


----------



## flyingllama (Mar 25, 2009)

I have never believed 9/11 was ever a conspiracy( fuck 9/11 is my birthday ). Simple physics proves this and people are stupidly blinded by it. There is NO way a commercial airliner could make a building go into complete free fall. Even with a building fire IF it melted the steel or weakened it it would just break at the weakest point, Causing that part of the building to just slide off. It would of been worse then it was.
Its pretty clear to me those buildings where pulled via controlled demolition.

The planes were drones. Granted they may of had people on them. But they where more or less for the visual so the reality would seem less plausible. 

Even after that. 2+2 is equaling 5 here. Buildings get pulled, gives us a phony reason go fight terrorist, specifically the Al queda. Yet somehow we end up in Iraq and kill Saddam. ?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 26, 2009)

so you don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy but you do believe it was an inside job? you've lost me dude


----------



## Mattayus (Mar 26, 2009)

flyingllama is spot on about the physics of it all. Whether you believe the conspiracy or not, there's no chance in shitting hell the plane's could have brought the buildings tumbling down.

However, this still doesn't point to any sort of culprit.

The latter part you mention, about the politics of the aftermath, is pure corruption at its best I think. People are easily persuaded when they're in a position of fear. I think it was just a case of "strike while the iron's hot", and they went after Saddam instead of any sort of real threat.

Again, that still doesn't point to any culprits, as governments pull that sort of shit all the time, whether they've just had a national security crisis or not!


----------



## RenegadeDave (Mar 26, 2009)

Mattayus said:


> flyingllama is spot on about the physics of it all. Whether you believe the conspiracy or not, there's no chance in shitting hell the plane's could have brought the buildings tumbling down.
> 
> However, this still doesn't point to any sort of culprit.
> 
> ...



Playing devils advocate: Buildings are designed for withstanding a dead load of a certain amount and a live load of a certain amount to account for wind/uplift/siesmic movement/whatever. Now aside from the obvious hole that would be ripped in the skin of the building, taking out several columns supporting much of the dead load and removing lateral bracing to resist the live load. Now throw in a bunch of fire. if just one story above the point of impact collapses, it's likely enough to make the whole building pancake down since the bolts/welds weren't designed to handle resisting hardly any live load. 

You can claim physics all you want, I work in construction and we recently had a parking deck come down. All it took was wrecking the shoring of the top level and the entire parking deck collapsed, pancake style, where one floor collapsed and landed on the next, causing it to collapse then the 2 floors collapse the next. You would think that they floor immediately under it would be able to withstand the weight of the floor above it, and it can, when it's a dead load. I've not bothered myself with boning up on the facts of the structure, but based off my experience with this one structure collapsing in a similar fashion, it seems logical to me. 

I watched this video just now to see, and it indeed collapses fro the top down, pancake style. Sure you could set charges that go off in sequence from the top down, or just on every other floor or whatever, but the result would be the same as if it pancaked. 


This was our parking deck that collapsed, a similar top down collapse, although this structure was post-tensioned concrete and not steel. The same principals apply. 

Jacksonville garage collapse injures workers - Bay News 9


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 26, 2009)

let's do a few Q/A:

could the Al Queda have planted demolition explosives inside the walls of the World Trade Centre? 

No.

could the American Government have planted demolition explosives inside the walls of the World Trade Centre? 

Yes, easily.

did George Bush need a reason for people to support him? 

Yes.

did he get said support after 9/11? 

Yes.

did George Bush want to finish off Daddy's unfinished business of killing Saddam because Daddy was stupid to catch him? 

Yes.

did people seem to notice that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are completely different people? 

No, they were 'scared'.

did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction?

NO PEOPLE.

is this just one freaky coincidence?

you tell me...


----------



## WhiteShadow (Mar 26, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> Not saying i believe in this conspiracy thing but what proof do we have that terrorist did it? Because of what some guy told you over the TV? Have they given us hard evidence? All the people on those planes are dead and everything is destroyed, we dont have anyone to tell us the truth. Im not trying to sound ignorant but there is more proof from conspiracy theorists imo than there is from our own government from what ive read and watched.



Well said.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Mar 26, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> let's do a few Q/A:
> 
> could the Al Queda have planted demolition explosives inside the walls of the World Trade Centre?
> 
> ...



W wasn't hugely unpopular until AFTER the war and enjoying a brief stint of being wildly popular. 

And another easy question for Q & A

Could a couple Muslim Extremists fly a plane into a building and topple it? 

Yes. 


Nothing about what I know abotu the buildings' collapse is contrary to my own knowledge of the other building collapse I have experience with. 

Plus, you've giving W way too much credit. I mean I don't think he's as dumb as many slag him for being, but he certainly ain't the brightest bulb in the can of lightbulbs. Is it possible that he used the occurrence as a chance to settle "unfinished business", I think that's exactly what it was.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 26, 2009)

Muslim Extremists could fly a plane into a building, I'm not sure about topple it. I'm pretty certain with security measures and technology we have today, if those planes got hijacked then they would've been stopped before they caused this tragedy. 

he definitely did use it as a chance yes, but let's be honest, he didn't run America. his closest advisers ran America through him. question is, did he make his own luck?


----------



## WhiteShadow (Mar 26, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> could the Al Queda have planted demolition explosives inside the walls of the World Trade Centre?
> 
> No.



Wheres your proof that this could NOT have been possible? Because the media said so? Anything is possible, nowadays, and back in 2001.



Scar Symmetry said:


> did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction?
> 
> NO PEOPLE.



Wheres your proof that he didnt? Because the media said so? Because our government said so? Again, anything is possible.


It all boils down to...none of us really know what happen, and the chances are overwhelmingly good that we will never REALLY know what happened. So i think the best thing to do is quit wondering. Personally, i dont really care what happened, mainly because its in the past, and i like to move forward. Something alot of Americans sure do have a problem doing, especially regarding 9/11.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Mar 26, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Muslim Extremists could fly a plane into a building, I'm not sure about topple it. I'm pretty certain with security measures and technology we have today, if those planes got hijacked then they would've been stopped before they caused this tragedy.
> 
> he definitely did use it as a chance yes, but let's be honest, he didn't run America. his closest advisers ran America through him. question is, did he make his own luck?



He's a politician, he uses a crisis to implement policy he wants to see that might be unsavory otherwise. Obama did the same thing with his "Stimulus" bill to grow the size and scope of the federal government doing little to address the root cause. 

I'm fairly certain a direct hit with an airplane could topple a tower, floor by floor. due to the removal of wind/cross bracing, supports for the floor above causing beams to cantilever, until that the floor above the point of impact collapses on the floor below it. I don't even think the steel's strength comes into play with the way steel structures are designed. It's not like the building was made by a bunch of tall steel beams spanning ground to roof on concrete footings, there are loads of intermediate members that support one another. The steel wouldn't have to melt, or even heated to the point that it would have structural failure. If members of the structure are removed, AND the load is increased (by roughly the weight of one airplane), yeah, the building will likely collapse. A structure is designed as a system, each component is not designed to stand resolute without the others helping to disperse the weight above and push back against any lateral forces via wind/cross bracing. 

It's far less sexy of a theory, I know, but I'm inclined to think that it's exponentially more likely.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 26, 2009)

then why did they say it melted?

curious.


----------



## Mattayus (Mar 26, 2009)

Media conjecture, most likely. Then after a short while it becomes a buzz-phrase that subsequently becomes "fact".


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 26, 2009)

i can see that this... like every other debate is going NOWHERE...


----------



## wannabguitarist (Mar 27, 2009)

I'll read the rest of the thread after, but this post stuck out to me:


flyingllama said:


> I have never believed 9/11 was ever a conspiracy( fuck 9/11 is my birthday ). Simple physics proves this and people are stupidly blinded by it. There is NO way a commercial airliner could make a building go into complete free fall. Even with a building fire IF it melted the steel or weakened it it would just break at the weakest point, Causing that part of the building to just slide off. It would of been worse then it was.
> Its pretty clear to me those buildings where pulled via controlled demolition.
> 
> The planes were drones. Granted they may of had people on them. But they where more or less for the visual so the reality would seem less plausible.
> ...



I've read simple physics can prove that a commercial airliner could do that if enough structural damage is done to the "core" of the building that provides most of the support.

Drones eh? *May* have had people? What about the pilots and people on the plane? So you're saying all the family grieving was fake? Or that the government just made all those people "disappear"? Do you actually know anyone that was killed or lost a family member in this tragedy? Tell them that the damn plane was a drone...

And we did end up in Afghanistan, and went after Al Queda. We just didn't put as much effort as we should have into it and ended up in Iraq (which I strongly disagree with). The CIA also backed Al Queda/Osama when he was fighting the Russians. I doubt we were still backing him in the years approaching 2001, though he did greatly benefit from our backing.

Also lets say the government did plan and execute 9/11, guess what? It's still (essentially) the same government we have now


----------



## Metal Ken (Mar 27, 2009)

Mattayus said:


> flyingllama is spot on about the physics of it all. Whether you believe the conspiracy or not, there's no chance in shitting hell the plane's could have brought the buildings tumbling down.



Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics
Read the "Melted Steel" myth, then go back and read the article from the front and report back to me.


----------



## WhiteShadow (Mar 27, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> then why did they say it melted?
> 
> curious.



I'm beginning to think that you believe everything you hear in the media.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 27, 2009)

WhiteShadow said:


> I'm beginning to think that you believe everything you hear in the media.



then you think wrong bro, seriously 



WhiteShadow said:


> Wheres your proof that this could NOT have been possible? Because the media said so? Anything is possible, nowadays, and back in 2001.
> 
> Wheres your proof that he didnt? Because the media said so? Because our government said so? Again, anything is possible.
> 
> It all boils down to...none of us really know what happen, and the chances are overwhelmingly good that we will never REALLY know what happened. So i think the best thing to do is quit wondering. Personally, i dont really care what happened, mainly because its in the past, and i like to move forward. Something alot of Americans sure do have a problem doing, especially regarding 9/11.



well I agree that we will never know what really happened. it just seems retarded to me that the chain of events that followed 9/11 were just a coincidence.


----------



## arktan (Mar 27, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics
> Read the "Melted Steel" myth, then go back and read the article from the front and report back to me.


*"We're sorry! There was an error on this page."* EDIT: It works again....



I would love to read that so i could disprove my physics-proffessors.
But in the first line i'd love to disprove myself. If the "core" of the building was really that badly damaged that it resulted in the collapse of the structure at that point then we would've had FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more dead. It just doesn't add up.
But again, i always read the counter-statements seriously (almost) every one of them.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 27, 2009)

to flip my last post on it's head, why can't we find out? why hasn't someone delved deep enough in to both sides of the story and found out?


----------



## RenegadeDave (Mar 27, 2009)

I'd love to see someone run the calcs on the as-built that the building could support itself a. after the airplane hit the building and then b. if the floors higher than the impact were to collapse onto the undamaged floors. 

If "physics" say that a plane can't knock over the buildings, then where is the proof? I'm sure the as-builts wouldn't be that challenging to get your hands on, and I'm sure skeptical structural engineers would happily run the calcs. I've not seen any quantifiable proof to the contrary other than people assured that "physics" say otherwise. 

The popular mechanics article even mentions a "pancake" style of collapse.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 7, 2009)

I'm watching footage from 9/11 on TV... damn this is some disturbing shit.

watching people freefall from the building really puts into perspective what they must've been going through to make them jump.

I'm not sure if I still believe it's an inside job, but I certainly think there's something fishy about the whole situation.

I want to believe that it was terrorists... while still pretty fucked up, it's less sordid than an inside job.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 8, 2009)

Even if you're saying that its possible for the buildings to collapse because a plane hit them (which seriously just isn't at all likely), how likely is it that BOTH buildings would fall in a similar fashion... and why did the other, smaller buildings around the twin towers fall? They weren't even hit by fucking planes. The fact that these smaller buildings collapsed adds more weight to the "fishy business" theories than not.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 8, 2009)

I used to think it was demolitions bringing those buildings down, but I watched footage from all different angles last night and I can see how those buildings collapsed.

to be honest it's stunning that they stayed standing as long as they did.

as regards to the buildings surrounding the twin towers... think about how many tons of steel, concrete and whatnot came down when those towers collapsed, there was no way they could fall without creating mass damage.

...damn, I changed my tune


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Sep 8, 2009)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> Yeah, those are actual posters which the Government put up in London...




So what? You're in public.


----------



## Pauly (Sep 9, 2009)

I love this site, seeing as all evidence is sourced and linked.
Conspiracy Science - Conspiracies and Myths Refuted, Debunked, and Explained

This one is also very good:
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 9, 2009)

watched a film called United 93 last night, it's about the 4th plane than never made it to it's destination, essential viewing.

definitely a moving piece of cinema, but if you can stomach it, it's worth the payoff.

I've never been so shaken up by a film before.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 9, 2009)

> David Icke argues that reptilian, shape-shifting extraterrestrial humanoids are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to Icke, a reptilian global elite is behind all things that occur in the world. According to Phoenix New Times, "Icke is part of a virulent strain of anti-Semitism that runs throughout the 9/11 conspiracy crowd." Icke's theories are rejected by 911blogger.com and other conspiracy theory sites.





David Icke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Icke states that most organised religions, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are Illuminati creations designed to divide and conquer the human race through endless conflicts. In a similar vein, Icke believes racial and ethnic divisions are an illusion promoted by the reptilians, and that racism fuels the Illuminati agenda.



the guy is a fucking nut.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 9, 2009)

What's strange is that I've read other stuff from Icke that was extremelly level headed and of high quality - I had a book by him and I was reading along all like , and then I got to the reptilian stuff and was a bit worried/confused/wtf'ing. On one hand, maybe he's right... on the other hand, holy shit, wtf?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 9, 2009)

well, he _is_ from the Isle of Wight...


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 10, 2009)

bumping this.

today I came across an article that all 4000 Jewish employees of the World Trade Center were all absent on the day of the attacks... if that's true, that is extremely suspicious.

I watched United 93 and felt utterly compelled to no longer believe that 9/11 was an inside job but now I'm angry at myself for being so media influenced.

I genuinely believe this is the most important subject matter in the world today, I'm sure I'm not the only one who sick of running in circles with this thing and never getting anywhere.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 10, 2009)

I have some things to say about this, but will most likely sound crazy so I'm reluctant.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 10, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I have some things to say about this, but will most likely sound crazy so I'm reluctant.



no, please do. I really think this needs discussing and to be covered from different points of view


----------



## ToniS (Sep 11, 2009)

If a plane really hit the pentagon, why can't they release the footage of the security camera on the nearby gas-station which captured the whole thing?

That alone tells me that there's something fishy about the whole thing, not even mentioning the other stuff.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 11, 2009)

tongarr said:


> If a plane really hit the pentagon, why can't they release the footage of the security camera on the nearby gas-station which captured the whole thing?
> 
> That alone tells me that there's something fishy about the whole thing, not even mentioning the other stuff.



I know right?

the official report stands on very weak legs.


----------



## zimbloth (Sep 11, 2009)

I think brilliant comedian David Cross really summed this up best...



'...because that's what he fucking said!'



Scar Symmetry said:


> bumping this.
> 
> today I came across an article that all 4000 Jewish employees of the World Trade Center were all absent on the day of the attacks... if that's true, that is extremely suspicious.



You've really been reading too much internet bullshit. A lot of Jews died on 9/11 - both in the planes and the WTC. That's an indisputable fact. This childish myth was debunked in a really interesting documentary I saw not too long ago. They interviewed a bunch of families of Jewish loved ones who perished that day. They were like "I wish that was true, then I'd have my daughter back" etc. It's pretty easy to go through the list of names and find obvious ones.

I give about as much credence to half of these absurd theories as the 'the devil showed himself in the explosions' rubbish. A lot of the stuff in this thread is so 2002. Let's move on already. I honestly don't think our Gov't is nearly clever enough to pull off something as elaborate like this. Giving these people way too much credit.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 11, 2009)

zimbloth said:


> You've really been reading too much internet bullshit. A lot of Jews died on 9/11 - both in the planes and the WTC. That's an indisputable fact. This childish myth was debunked in a really interesting documentary I saw not too long ago. They interviewed a bunch of families of Jewish loved ones who perished that day. They were like "I wish that was true, then I'd have my daughter back" etc. It's pretty easy to go through the list of names and find obvious ones.



you may be right, but this is the frustrating thing, where else can I research this information?

there is a lot of unanswered questions and I'm surprised more people don't want to know what really happened. 

Bush said he saw the first plane crash on TV. fact. this is impossible, he was lying.

Rumsfeld said that the United 93 flight was shot down. fact. how could this be if the official report says otherwise? he was lying too, or the official report was.

the US Government couldn't account for $2.3 Trillion of spending, next day... 9/11. coincidence?

the Bush Administration was shady to say the least and although it may be a lot to ask, I wouldn't knowing hard facts; the truth.


----------



## zimbloth (Sep 11, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> you may be right, but this is the frustrating thing, where else can I research this information?



Yeah I know man, it's tough. The internet is full of so much bullshit its hard to weed through the crap and find reliable information. I also know how easy it is to get sucked in by compelling conspiracy videos/websites sometimes. However, 99.9% of it is pure rubbish which can be easily debunked. 

If you really want to research this, I'd start with reports from reputable journalists not random bloggers with no sources. There are some very good documentaries out there that has an incredible amount of 1st hand accounts and inside information. I remember seeing a PBS documentarily not too long ago called "Bush's War" or something. It was pretty scathing and had a lot of 9/11 info that makes you see things in a different light. A lot of it is depressing, but it also makes the idea of a 'attack on our own people' thing seem ridiculous. 

Also, be more cognizant of agendas. When you see stuff like the "no jews died on 9/11" thing, it should be obvious whats behind that. 

I definitely wouldn't be surprised if our gov't was negligent and perhaps wanted something like that to happen, in order to implement new laws and further the Neo-Con agenda. I definitely wouldn't be surprised if they shot down Flight 93 and made up the whole thing about how the passengers staged a heroic fight against the terrorists to rally us. However, I think the stuff about bombing the WTC and all that to be over-the-top and lacking credible evidence.

Honestly, I think there's way more evidence to support the presence of UFOs/aliens than any of this 'inside job' 9/11 stuff.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 11, 2009)

all I know is that some of the smartest people I know believe it's an inside job and I'm pretty sure I do too.

it's the American Government's fault that these theories are alive becuase the information they gave us was so little and does not add up the way they says it does.

also, the keeping of videos and reports begs the question why they would do this.


----------



## arktan (Sep 11, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> the question why they would do this.



And today on the 11th of September 2009 we still have no clue of what happened.

My *guess* is that it is the famous repetition of history.

See:

The Maine Incident USS Maine (ACR-1) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gleiwitz incident Gleiwitz incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gulf of Tonkin incident Gulf of Tonkin Incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Saddam's WMD's

and countless other incidents which i'm too lazy to look for.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Sep 13, 2009)

arktan said:


> Saddam's WMD's



See, I've never really understood that one. We went into Afghanistan first. I also think Bush didn't need 9/11 to go after Saddam, I mean he had the public pretty convinced about those "WMDs." And didn't he bomb some shit outside of Baghdad sometime early in 2001 for no reason?



Scar Symmetry said:


> Bush said he saw the first plane crash on TV. fact. this is impossible, he was lying.



Did he really?



> Rumsfeld said that the United 93 flight was shot down. fact. how could this be if the official report says otherwise? he was lying too, or the official report was.



Where did he say this?



> the US Government couldn't account for $2.3 Trillion of spending, next day... 9/11. coincidence?



Spending on what? I don't see how spending money after a national crisis is shady



> the Bush Administration was shady to say the least and although it may be a lot to ask, I wouldn't knowing hard facts; the truth



I agree here

The issue I have with a lot of the "inside job" stuff is they say "so-and-so" said this, but there's no source or anything to use for fact checking other than some other poorly done blog. And it's almost impossible to have a discussion with these people because every time you attempt to refute a point they scream "BUT THAT IS A GOVERNMENT BACKED SOURCE!!"


----------



## Pauly (Sep 13, 2009)

Pauly said:


> I love this site, seeing as all evidence is sourced and linked.
> Conspiracy Science - Conspiracies and Myths Refuted, Debunked, and Explained
> 
> This one is also very good:
> Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage




Adding another, the James Randi forums. Lots of intellectuals and talented thinkers, they have a specific subforum for this stuff I believe:
James Randi Educational Foundation
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 13, 2009)

as for they spending, they don't know where the money went, they can't account for the money. it was going to be all over the news that the Government had spent this $2.3 Trillion and couldn't account for it - 9/11 happened the following day.

I would call that shady personally.

I find it impossible to have a decent discussion about 9/11 because there is so little concrete evidence, so really either side doesn't really have a leg to stand on.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Sep 13, 2009)

Ah, I misunderstood you and thought you said that money was spent after 9/11.

I've never seen those videos before


----------



## ddtonfire (Sep 13, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


>




19 seconds sounds ridiculously out of context.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 13, 2009)

ddtonfire said:


> 19 seconds sounds ridiculously out of context.



does it?

why would he say 'shot down' if it was crashed by the terrorists as we are lead to believe?


----------



## Pauly (Sep 13, 2009)

Presuming you believe the hijacked planes were allowed to carry out their kamikaze runs by the Government, an explanation is therefore needed as to why they would then shoot down their own attack plane before it reached it's target (unlike the other 3 planes). This is what ends up being one of the dumber aspects of this claim. Let's suppose, for a minute, that Flight 93 was shot down. Given the whole story of "it was on its way to crash into the Capitol building in Washington DC," why would the government deny they shot it down? Particularly, given that it crashed in a remote, unpopulated area? They also quite publically scrambled jets out that day after grounding civilian aircraft with the intention of shooting down any further threats, so why then not just admit they'd had to bring down a plane? If they had done it, they would have given themselves a sombre pat on the back for successfully neutralizing the threat.

Then there's the Flight Data Recorder report, which indicates the aircraft was perfectly intact and functioning well at the moment of impact. Not only that, but the cockpit voice recorder shows that the terrorists were in control of the plane and purposefully decided to crash it when they realized the passengers were going to get to them.

Then of course, there's the eyewitness accounts, many of which can actually be found on some Conspiracy websites themselves! These quotes all came with links but unfortunately many of them are now dud, I'm sure some Googling on the ones with names a least will bring more joy:
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/8226.html

Nobody reported seeing the plane suffering missile damage (which is unrealistic anyway as a direct hit would have caused the plane to break up in the air) and if you check any photos of the crash site (either official or media reported), you can clearly see the impact crater and where the wings hit.


Can provide citations for whatever but zzz tired, bed.

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/6447.html
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/6731.html
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/8494.html


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 13, 2009)

^The only way you can ask why the "kamikazee planes" would get shot down instead of reaching their destination is if you are already assuming that there would be a good reason for the government to take out the World Trade Center buildings. I'm not so much under the impression that the buildings themselves are an essential ingredient as I am that the whole thing is part of a much bigger cover up.

For what its worth, I live near by Somerset, PA where flight 93 went down and I've talked to several different people that saw white jets flying overhead _immediately_ following the crash.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Sep 13, 2009)

It was the Soviets 

Kidding. Bush couldn't say anything publicly without it backfiring in his cute little old man face


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 13, 2009)

you can debunk anything from either side, this is what's annoying about 9/11.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 13, 2009)

There being white jets overhead following the downed flight 93 has yet to be debunked with any likely explanation.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Sep 13, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> you can debunk anything from either side, this is what's annoying about 9/11.



I dunno, Popular Science did a pretty good job debunking a lot conspiracy stuff

And I know for certain it wasn't the shape shifting lizard people


----------



## wannabguitarist (Sep 13, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> There being white jets overhead following the downed flight 93 has yet to be debunked with any likely explanation.



But did the jets shoot anything down? Who cares if there were jets in the sky if they didn't do anything?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 13, 2009)

You don't find it suspicious that they were RIGHT behind the plane?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 13, 2009)

wannabguitarist said:


> I dunno, Popular Science did a pretty good job debunking a lot conspiracy stuff
> 
> And I know for certain it wasn't the shape shifting lizard people



what about JFK? 

this has JFK written all over it.


----------



## Pauly (Sep 14, 2009)

You could always try asking VF Corporation of Greensboro N.C, whose white Dassault Falcon 20 business jet was in the air nearby at the time of impact, and was asked by the FAA to investigate the area where the plane went down if they put death rays on their plane, then not to tell anyone about it.

Pretty much everything covered ITT btw: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66290


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 14, 2009)

There were three of them spotted. So three white business jets flying right behind a downed plane? That's horse shit. Its easy to write stuff off in an "official report", but I'll be damned if I believe most shit I hear on the radio, read in the papers, watch on TV, etc.


----------



## Pauly (Sep 14, 2009)

Evidence for '3 white planes' please. Eyewitness accounts + Flight 93's blackbox + crash site all correspend with the 'official' version of events. It's all in that thread, really.

EDIT This is going to turn into one of those prove a negative, circular reasoning things isn't it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 14, 2009)

Dave already pointed that out.

..besides, even if I magically produced video footage of the planes I'm talking about, there'd still be a debate as to what their purpose was. Talking to honest people who saw the event with their own eyes was sufficient enough to at least leave me highly suspicious, when considering all of the other questionable 9/11 information.

Also, if there _is_ a cover up at play, why would the real truth be disclosed in some official report? That argument doesn't hold weight in this particular debate.


----------



## Pauly (Sep 16, 2009)

I don't see any debate, you're not providing any evidence or citations, just using the poison the well fallacy to suggest I would dismiss anything you brought to the table, and anything I bring cannot be trusted. The simple truth is that the vast majority of conspiracy theorists utterly refuse to take the sum total of the evidence available, not just from official reports like NIST, but eye-witness accounts, photographs, video footage (in context, v. important), seismic recordings, physics, chemistry, engineers, architects, construction diagrams, peer-reviewed journal papers, and so on, and choose instead to nit pick at details which they then dismiss on either on confirmation bias or personal incredulity.

In the end everyone, the media, the NY Fire Department and any eye witness that provides an account which doesn't gel with the CT is dismissed as a plant or government shill. It's quite ridiculous and basically ends up with everyone and their mother being implicated, paranoid much? I've pointed this forum 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - JREF Forum out repeatedly, as it exists for structured debate on the subject where people can analyse evidence objectively.

If you try doing this on Infowars you'll get banned, because they don't like people who have opposing opinions and bring citations, sources and personal expertise in any relevent given field to the fore. If anyone on JREF gets banned it's because of constant ad hominem attacks and refusal to behave in an adult manner. See you there!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 16, 2009)

Pauly said:


> If you try doing this on Infowars you'll get banned, because *they don't like people who have opposing opinions and bring citations, sources and personal expertise in any relevent given field* to the fore.



sounds like Fascism to me.

I had a look around that website, looks like a bunch of smug know-it-alls trying to out-do each other. It's so biased towards 'the conspiracy is ridiculous', they are all unanimous about '9/11' truth, how does that make for fair debate?

in fact, from reading a few threads they're actually making fun of conpiracy theorists more than actually backing a solid argument.


----------



## JakeRI (Sep 19, 2009)

haven't been following this thread, but thought this might peak some interest Italy Ex-President - CIA And Mossad Ran 9-11 - Auburn Journal


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 19, 2009)

JakeRI said:


> haven't been following this thread, but thought this might peak some interest Italy Ex-President - CIA And Mossad Ran 9-11 - Auburn Journal



that is very interesting. that man is playing with his life saying that, but I respect him for having that balls to do it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 19, 2009)

JakeRI said:


> haven't been following this thread, but thought this might peak some interest Italy Ex-President - CIA And Mossad Ran 9-11 - Auburn Journal



Bravo, sir. This coincides with my own beliefs on the events. If more of us react positively to this, I'll go ahead and type up my take on things. Any rebuttles to this?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 19, 2009)

I'm all ears for your take on it, Adam.


----------



## Pauly (Sep 21, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> sounds like Fascism to me.
> 
> I had a look around that website, looks like a bunch of smug know-it-alls trying to out-do each other. It's so biased towards 'the conspiracy is ridiculous', they are all unanimous about '9/11' truth, how does that make for fair debate?
> 
> in fact, from reading a few threads they're actually making fun of conpiracy theorists more than actually backing a solid argument.



It's fair debate because they present evidence, show how they do their sums and cite sources. I don't see people like Killtown or Heiwa doing that ([email protected]'s we'll use stacked coffee mugs/lemons/spaghetti/pizza boxs posts). If you actually READ the threads, you'll see the reason truthers get mocked is precisely because they refuse to debate in the first place. 

For example, here is a peer reviewed journal on 9/11:
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The peers:
Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
[email protected]

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma MPGE | The University of Oklahoma ||

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts The College of Engineering University of Massachusetts | C.S. Chang

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/

Henri Gavin, Duke University
Faculty Listing | Duke Civil and Environmental Engineering Department

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Faculty: Department of Civil Engineering: U of MN.

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Christian.Hellmich, E202 - Institut für Mechanik der Werkstoffe und Strukturen, Fakultät für Bauingenieurwesen, White Pages TU Wien

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/

Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5

Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
NTNU Institutt for matematiske fag

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
Buckling of Unilaterally Constrained Infinite Plates

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi



Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
Alexander H.-D. Cheng, Home Page

James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
James L. Beck

Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
USC Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering: Roger G. Ghanem

Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i

Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
MIT - Faculty - Chiang C. Mei | Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT

Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."

As of yet there is not a SINGLE peer viewed journal by any member of the 'truth' community (unsurprising), on 9/11 that provides any other explanation than the official one. I'd love to see one on the death-ray laser hypothesis, I really would. A truther recently put out his own paper online claiming that there were no victims inside the WTC when it collapsed, I can link you to that if you want.

Stephen Jones had a paper published by vanity/pay to publish journal Bentham, which then descended into farce when the editor in chief quit because she hadn't even been shown the paper before it was published. The journal then was ridiculed in New Scientist for publishing a paper consisting entirely of nonense they created just to see how useless they were (this had nothing to do with 9/11 but with vanity journals generally). Has any profressional taken notice of the paper? No. Why? Because it's nonsense and contains so much phoney science nobody can take it seriously. Another famous truther paper was DESTROYED by Ryan Mackey, NASA scientist and engineer (and obviously NWO shill ), in his own paper here: 911guide - On Debunking 9/11 Debunking by Ryan Mackey

Truthers also consistently duck out of any live technical debates, so quick to rubbish professional opinion, yet also so quick to say they haven't 'got time' to be filmed. A recent example; David Chandler, prominent 'truther' who was scheduled to have a live debate with Ryan Mackey, ducked out at the last minute. I quote from David and the producer of the show:



> Tired Routine
> Well, Chandler has made it official: he's ducking the debate. You may use our exchanges for any purpose you deem appropriate.
> 
> Ron
> ...



Naturally they then just called him some names.

Francesco Cossiga! This was down to the article being deliberately mistranslated from it's Italian and taken wildly out of context. If you get a fluent Italian to translate the article from the Corriere della Sera (where it was first published), it leaves little doubt that Cossiga is being sarcastic about the perceived tendency of the Italian left to blame everything on Berlusconi, the Americans and the Zionists. Cossiga is on the right, being part of the Christian Democratic Party. When he says that the center-left are Truthers, this is not so much an endorsement of Truthism as an insult aimed at the center-left itself.

Perhaps this will help: Osama-Berlusconi? «Journalistic trap» - Windows Live


As well as this:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm from Italy, so I know very well the sarcasm of our former president Cossiga. Before doing a translation of the article, I'd like to point out that Cossiga does NOT thrust in CT about 9/11, and he said that a lot of time. Italian CTers (like Giulietto Chiesa) seems to have a very short memory, and while they point to his latest interview on Corriere della Sera thinking Cossiga is a CTer, they forget to mention many other interviews released by the former president, like this one on La Stampa (sorry, but the forum does not allow me to link) another important italian newspaper. (to be precise, this is not an interview but an article written by Cossiga himself)
> 
> ...



Another translation:



> As I've been told, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow (interview appeared on 30 november 07) the most important chain of newspaper of our country should give the proof, with an exceptional scoop, that the video (which in reality is an audio tape, NdR) in which appear Osama, leader of "the great and powerful movement of islamic revenge Al Quaeda" - God bless him! - and in which are formulated threats to our ex president Berlusconi, is nothing more than a fake realized inside Mediaset studios (the huge television group owned by Berlusconi) in Milan and sent to arabic television Al Jazeera.
> 
> The trap was organized to create solidarity for Berlusconi, which is having lot of problem related for the tangle between RAI and Mediaset. From sources near to Palazzo Chigi, the nevralgic center of italian intelligence, we know that the video is fake because Osama admits that he was the mind behind the attacks against the twin towers, while all the democratic parties in Europe and USA know very well that the attack was organised by CIA and Mossad, whit the help of sionistic world, just to accuse arab countries and induce occident to intervein both in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is why nobody in parlament gave solidarity to Berlusconi, which is the author of the fake video".



And



> Compare the Twoofers translation in the article:
> 
> "[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan. "
> 
> ...



*crickets chirping*

Next?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 21, 2009)

I did READ the threads, and I spoke of what I saw.

I was already aware that professionals with PhDs had confirmed the official report, and I still don't believe it. Things about the 'attacks' like the fact that these 'terrorists' infiltrated the Pentagon's airspace, the video shows no aeroplane crashing into the Pentagon amongst other things mean that I cannot take the official report seriously.

Holes in the official report plus the fact that there is so much information not available to the public begs for a conspiracy theory, do you not think? When the American Government has so much scandal in it's history, do you _really_ blame people for believing the theory? 

I'm not sold, even after I watched the 9/11 footage for myself and sat back in disbelief that a country could do that to itself, I still came back round to thinking it's not as it would appear.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Sep 22, 2009)

man. lot of discussion going on here! rofl. as far as 9/11, the fact is that it was in all probability paid for from the funds bin-laden aquired from the cia. our governments knew the attacks were coming. they even said that BOTH the US gov and the UK gov were running exercises of the same scenerios at the same time. sure. all our gov'ts and Leaders (except for a few; dr king, jefferson, lincoln, etc) have continuously feed us bullshit and we swallow it all. we get caught up in all these conspiracy theories which detract again, from the real problems. anyone of these big time politicians in power are always going to be corrupt, they are all 'made' men in a sense.

the popular science article is good, scientific, but it misses the human aspect. who owns popular science? time-warner. who owns time-warner? Turner Broadcasting, run by Ted Turner. heard of him? he's as crooked as they come. and he owns a nice chunk of the slanted media we all read/see/hear everyday. im not even going to get into the others. tv, massive media outlets 24/7, fast food, cinema, video games, all distractions in their own right. not saying we shouldn't have those things, but those novelties have taken over our lives. we ignore whats going on in the world while we indulge in our 'civilized' countries, which power our gov'ts and corp's who basicly steal natural resources and wealth from other countries and their citizens. screwing everyone over! thanks guys!!1! we've become so dependent on these people we cannot even live our own lives! the tv and media has molded us into naive, ignorant, arrogant, selfish people. i think the only way we are going to have a world we can all live in happily is if we all take control over our OWN lives and not let it be run by our blessed, ignorant, misguided leaders. i think we've all forgotten how to do that! fuck if i know. its not so much that these guys do all this odd, fucked up shit. lie to our faces, over and over again, and stir up shit with our neighbors (other countries!), its that WE LET THEM, like lots of other people on this board who've said the same, we never do anything because we don't have enough support! we're too busy fighting each others beliefs and opinions instead of examining the facts and putting petty shit aside. don't buy into these michael moore's, alex jones', and those other crazy dudes, while a lot of it is true or has some factual basis, at least have an objective approach to the information they yabb about, because most of it is pretty right sided and want the libertarian approach and have the US the way our forefathers had it. but it will just end up here again! look at history, its just a smorgisborg of civilizations and societies taking over other countries/contients, wiping out the native people and/or corrupting their leaders. its no different now, except we have bigger guns!!! and much better propaganda!


----------



## Pauly (Sep 23, 2009)

The NIST report > PM article, however it's around 10,000 pages long, patience required.

Also, Alex Jones is a digusting individual who is personally profitting from exploiting the death of 3000 innocent people. He didn't get his cushy home, home studio and merchandise enterprise for Christmas, and any non-profit claims by people like him and Peter Joseph are highly, highly dubious considering what they charge for their stuff v.s. how much it takes to produce and distribute.

Replying to SS; if the NWO/Jew Lizards/Illuminati went to all the trouble of killing all these innocent people and making it look like a terrorist attack so they could galvanize home support and then the US could invade Afghan, and then Iraq to plunder it's oilz, why did they forget to do something far, FAR less complicated like plant some WMDs on Saddam's turf instead of making themselves look stupid? Those NWO people sure are incompetent!

Even if you want to water 'them' down to a few rogue members of the government, the idea that elements within the Bush administration conspired to invade Iraq with the public outrage over an faked attack by Saudi terrrorists, give the Iraqi government full control of it's oil, so that they could grant oil rights to a Chinese company seems like a logical plausible plan? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/world/middleeast/06iraqoil.html?em also http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html

Once again, they crashed four airliners, killed three thousand people and destroyed two of the most iconic landmarks of New York City (as well as WTC7, a building most of the world had never heard of). And yet, when they invaded Iraq, when they stood to gain the approval and gratitude of the free world for nullifying a major threat to the West by knocking out Saddam Hussein's WMD program, they couldn't even go the extra yard to plant some fakes in an area they had locked down tight under military control. And as a result nobody trusts the USA anywhere near as much as they used to, and the Bush administration is history rather than being carried on by his chosen successor, whoever that might have been (oh wait, we've got 'The Obama Deception', lol) Their main reason to invade Iraq was to remove a government unyielding to Western demands for oil, only to have it replaced by a government unyielding to Western demands for oil? Riiiiiight.

As for the Pentagon, when you take into account eye-witness reports (both inside and out of the Pentagon), human remains, various photographs of the debris as well as the phone calls from people on the plane, and a bunch of other stuff it's pretty damn conclusive. Hell, even TRUTHER websites have mostly conceded it was a plane: The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows . Anyone that thinks it's a missile is simply doing classic CT-level thinking and singling out one tiny detail and questioning it illogically, whilst conviniently ignoring all the other available evidence that paints the whole picture.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 23, 2009)

maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but I'm definitely not going to say I know for sure one way or the other.


----------



## iondestroyer1527 (Sep 24, 2009)

the funniest thing to me is that shit head that made the site about how the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane...if he had the inside scoop that the government didn't want anyone knowing about he would have been snatched interrogated and never heard from again...all this shit is funny! in the end it's all utterly out of our control...really. if this bums you out though feel free to go and watch v for vendetta so you can feel empowered again


----------



## JakeRI (Sep 25, 2009)

Here is the underlying thing:

Truthers don't believe the majority of the official report because most of it doesnt make sense.

Truthers offer alternatives, and sometimes get carried away.

But when it comes down to it, all we want is another investigation. We have more questions then answers. While it is easy to attack the individual "Crazed" truthers, you can't question the movement, considering all the movement wants is so answers that actually make sense. I'm not crazy. I am an atheist for crying out loud. That means it takes proof to convince me of something, and yet I still think the conspiracy side is the most fact based.

Another note worth mentioning:

It is logical that a group of respected scientist can make a logical, honest conclusion, regardless of the data. For example, suppose what the based everything off of was not the truth? The gov't controlled what info got out. It is interesting that they say prolonged heat exposure could doom the towers, while the fires were burning 500 degrees colder then what the steel was certified for.



MHO


----------



## Randy (Sep 25, 2009)

^


Somebody should write a song about it, or something.


----------



## phaeded0ut (Sep 25, 2009)

I thought that Pink Floyd already covered this a few times, "Careful With That Axe, Eugene," "Fearless," "Brain Damage."

Marillion also did this with, "He Knows You Know."


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 25, 2009)

Something to point out - now that we have the internet, which, amongst other descriptions, can be called Earth's collection of opinions and theories, if somebody were to come forward on a website/youtube and come clean about some inside information, or even just propose their theory on a coverup/conspiracy (and its right on the money), them winding up dead shortly after would be a pretty clear indication that there's something going on. The internet is our saving grace, because it puts everything out in the open if we want it to be there. We don't have to worry as much about some black-ops guys taking us away. I mean, I'm sure its possible, and probably happens, but nowhere near as easily as it did 20 years ago.


----------



## JakeRI (Sep 25, 2009)

Randy said:


> ^
> 
> 
> Somebody should write a song about it, or something.



our song 845 is about it


----------



## Randy (Sep 25, 2009)




----------



## Pauly (Sep 27, 2009)

The steel thing has been covered time and time and time and time again. People like the infamous Stephen Jones went from thermite, to nano thermite, to nanothermite as the fuse for hundreds of explosives.... it just gets more and more ridiculous. If anyone has any specific claims I'm more than happy to write up something, although obviously if you want to start getting into the maths I'll have to hand it to someone like Ryan Mackey whose ability level is some leagues above mine.


----------



## Pauly (Sep 28, 2009)

This will certainly satisfy any doubts you have about steel warping from regular fires (or even direct sunlight on a hot day!):
911 Links - Fire Safety Engineering & the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires
Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires. - JREF Forum

Plenty of sources from engineering and architecture books, along with various links to news stories regarding steel failure in fires going back to 1910. Tons of factual evidence, basically. Enjoy.


----------



## TruthDose (Sep 28, 2009)

iondestroyer1527 said:


> the funniest thing to me is that shit head that made the site about how the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane...if he had the inside scoop that the government didn't want anyone knowing about he would have been snatched interrogated and never heard from again...all this shit is funny! in the end it's all utterly out of our control...really. if this bums you out though feel free to go and watch v for vendetta so you can feel empowered again


 
I wouldn't say that the man is crazy for being skeptical of a plane hitting the pentagon. There are loads of evidence to support all sorts of theories regarding that particular incident on 9/11. I have a very strong opinion of it all myself, and I've spent a great deal of time on trying to sort through the b/s conspiracies (aliens, etc.) and the faults in the 9/11 Commission Report, and I still cannot figure out what happened at the pentagon.

3rd ring hole in wall of Pentagon from the Al tip of a plane?


Overall on the whole issue, I'd say that the issue with 9/11 truthers is the yuppies who "ZOMGZ watched Zeitgeist" and now are blindly following the Infowars movement, and calling it free thinking. I, myself support the Infowars group, however I stick to the main ideals of it. Question and evaluate for yourself. Its is the people who are ignoring this who are being used as the example to destroy/discredit the Patriot Movement. I'd gladly debate this issue with anyone. There's plenty of things people can learn from each other.


----------



## JakeRI (Sep 29, 2009)

TruthDose said:


> I
> 
> Overall on the whole issue, I'd say that the issue with 9/11 truthers is the yuppies who "ZOMGZ watched Zeitgeist" and now are blindly following the Infowars movement, and calling it free thinking. I, myself support the Infowars group, however I stick to the main ideals of it. Question and evaluate for yourself. Its is the people who are ignoring this who are being used as the example to destroy/discredit the Patriot Movement. I'd gladly debate this issue with anyone. There's plenty of things people can learn from each other.



that how i feel. Alot of what Alex Jones says needs to be questioned. Everything, actually, needs to be question. Thats why i try and watch/read all available sources


----------



## TruthDose (Oct 2, 2009)

Randy said:


> That's why he's keeping Guantanamo Bay, and all those secret European CIA interrogation facilities open.




That's actually true. That executive order "closing Guantanamo" was bullshit. It actually states that it "may be" in a year or two. It also declares the unlawful renditions, lawful .


----------



## Hollowman (Oct 28, 2009)

Zeitgeist Movie is all I'm gonna say.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 28, 2009)

Zeitgeist takes good points and truths and places them in yet another wrong context.


----------



## harkonnen8 (Oct 28, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Zeitgeist takes good points and truths and places them in yet another wrong context.



Do explain.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 28, 2009)

I'll respond to that, but being that its been some time since I've seen either film, I'll watch them while I respond. I enjoy this subject matter too much to do it any injustice.


----------



## Hollowman (Oct 28, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Zeitgeist takes good points and truths and places them in yet another wrong context.



How do you figure.

See the problem, is that if people don't believe you then you are labeled a cospiracy thoerist however, if you think all this is wrong context, search out the Bills, the Patriot Act is very similar to the Enable Act of Nazi Germany even the way they were brought about claimed Terrorist Act was the same. these Bills which stripped rights from their countries citizens, much like Germany before the U.S., or how about the Thought Crime Prevention Bill search that interesting enough the Patiort Act was sponsered by Sen D.Rockerfeller the same as the Rockerfeller Banking Dynasty, our Constution is for U.S. citizens we didn't need a Bill to spy on anyone who is not a U.S. citizen, our Constitution already gave us that Power ,Still don't believe go to wattsupwiththat.com search global climate treaty there is the doc that is gonna be signed on Dec 7-18 in Copenhagan page 18 item 38 states that there will be a World Goverment with 3 purposes to Govern, Finance, Enforce. I've read it all of it I suggest you do too,


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 28, 2009)

This is not a matter of whether or not I believe in any of these "absurd" ideas, because indeed the truth is much more abstract than what is commonly believed in most cases. I, if anyone, can easily be called a conspiracy theorist, so you don't have to assume that I'm calling Zeitgeist "crazy".


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 28, 2009)

TruthDose said:


> I wouldn't say that the man is crazy for being skeptical of a plane hitting the pentagon. There are loads of evidence to support all sorts of theories regarding that particular incident on 9/11. I have a very strong opinion of it all myself, and I've spent a great deal of time on trying to sort through the b/s conspiracies (aliens, etc.) and the faults in the 9/11 Commission Report, and I still cannot figure out what happened at the pentagon.



A Plane hit it. Its pretty easy to spot. There's people who post here who watched it happened, and who have friends who watched it happen.


----------



## Pauly (Oct 28, 2009)

Hollowman666 said:


> How do you figure.
> 
> See the problem, is that if people don't believe you then you are labeled a cospiracy thoerist however, if you think all this is wrong context, search out the Bills, the Patriot Act is very similar to the Enable Act of Nazi Germany even the way they were brought about claimed Terrorist Act was the same. these Bills which stripped rights from their countries citizens, much like Germany before the U.S., or how about the Thought Crime Prevention Bill search that interesting enough the Patiort Act was sponsered by Sen D.Rockerfeller the same as the Rockerfeller Banking Dynasty, our Constution is for U.S. citizens we didn't need a Bill to spy on anyone who is not a U.S. citizen, our Constitution already gave us that Power ,Still don't believe go to wattsupwiththat.com search global climate treaty there is the doc that is gonna be signed on Dec 7-18 in Copenhagan page 18 item 38 states that there will be a World Goverment with 3 purposes to Govern, Finance, Enforce. I've read it all of it I suggest you do too,




No, Zeitgeist is baloney and you can prove it's baloney simply by checking out each claim that's made. This would obviously take some time but fortunately someone's done it for you, complete with sourced citations and links to further reading that prove fallacious claims are fallacious:
Zeitgeist, the movie Debunked - Introduction - Zeitgeist Exposed - Conspiracy Science - Conspiracies and Myths Refuted, Debunked, and Explained

The various chapters, sources the movie uses and so on are on the left.

As for the lolsome climate treaty thing...

Conspiracy theorist says:


> The fact that this UN body anoints itself a "government" responsible for taxation, enforcement and redistribution, according to paragraph 38, Annex 1, of the treaty, should worry any nation that values its sovereignty!



What it actually says in the treaty itself:


> 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization
> of which will include the following:
> (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
> FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2
> ...



Wait, where's the scary NWO stuff? You thiink a treaty could ever over-ride your Constitution or a nation's sovereignity? Some googlng tells me you should read paragraph 2 of Article VI of the Constitution and then look up Reid V. Covert and see how it has been interpreted. 

This treaty is simply about 3 things:
1) Creating international awareness of the importance of the Copenhagen UN Climate Summit and the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.
2) Promoting constructive dialogue between government, business, and science.
3) Inspiring global business leaders by demonstrating that tackling climate change also has the potential to create huge opportunities for innovation and economic growth.

And please, please don't try any 'anthropogenic global warming is made up!' stuff. The facts and science speak for themselves.

Whatever happened to "Bush is gonna use executive orders to make himself dictator and throw us all into the FEMA concentration camps" that was so popular several years ago? It seems to have been conviniently forgetten and replaced with "Obama's going to sign us all over to the Commies!". 

The Pentagon... please. 911 Links - Pentagon Attack & Flight 77 Evidence Summary & Links page 1 of 2
911 Links - Pentagon Attack page 2


----------



## skattabrain (Oct 30, 2009)

the facts are less clear to me ... there are lots of different opinions on different areas, nothing 'fits like a glove' for me. you can explain away almost anything. i don't think anyone has it just right 100% ... but *one thing i know is that the banks are trying to own the world, the 24 hour news cycle makes no sense* and people everywhere are simply too busy being entertained to care.



Pauly said:


> And please, please don't try any 'anthropogenic global warming is made up!' stuff. The facts and science speak for themselves.



take a look at this ... what do you think?



i'm no scientist ... and i'm open to both sides, but if the whole freaking solar system just warmed up ... then how can we just say "al gore and his army of scientists (which is another laugh) have settled the "science" and there is nothing more to talk about' ... let's sign cap and trade and give up our sovereignty at Copenhagen!

but that doesn't mean lets just trash our planet ... it's like a line is drawn in the sand and all everyone seems to know is that those people on the "other" side of where i'm standing are wrong, evil and/or stupid.

you're not unamerican if you question things ... you might be if you want a communist govt in it's place ... lol

this is something the right really leaned on these past few years ... "you can't even question anything" or your unamerican.

but for my fellow conspiracy nuts out there ... get out the popcorn cause an HQ version of Fall of the Republic is streaming on youtube.


----------



## Hollowman (Oct 30, 2009)

Pauly, did you read the whole thing.all of it like I stated before instead of searching one part.the U.S and England falls under Annex 1 Country a Country with a Historical Debt, China falls under Annex 2 a Lesser Devoloped Country, even though China is just as devoloped and more industrialized as the U.S. and England. Also, CO2 is Carbon Dioxide is what plants use to help in Photosynthesis and turns into Oxygen, which also helps in plant growth so then you figure more CO2, more plant growth. basic science. see the plant self corrects,it's been doing this for millions of years these are all Global Trends and is dictated by the Sun this is why Mars and Jupiter had warm ups and had melting of what could be considered Ice say it with me...TRENDS it's Proven from the Core Samples they have taken from the Ice Caps and that we've experienced the same thing for millions of years, so how is this bad? just a common sense point of view. by the way Al Gore's answer to Dolphin Safe Tuna was "just put it on the can people would believe it." or lets not forget his claim of inventing the Internet, Leonard Kleinrock invented the internet. See an economic treaty which is what this is for technogy and currency does nothing for our environment theres nothing wrong with it.it's a scam.the thing is our Congress has to pass this Treaty into law and since they have Stted they don't read anything that they sign, it would be easier for this treaty to be passed. Also please don't tell me the about my government which is the same Goverment that displaced the Native Americans from their Homes/Terrortories just to take over their land , or had at 1time justified Slavery then had to have a war to end it, or displace some 150,00 people, remember Bikini Atoll? just to do 2 Atomic Bomb Test's and "accidentally" dropped a third one in a town in South Carolina. one more note the U.S. didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol.

As for the rest I've watched some of tthe Debunking videos you say debunk Zeitgeist and I'll answer that part later but for now check these out.

Please by all means try to Debunk him and put up a video there are 6 episodes so far. one of them is on FEMA camps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycLqeLrFF7k


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 3, 2009)

"Those that avoid politics will be ruled by their inferiors" - Plato.

As they say regarding Evolution, Nuclear, Gravity, Spherical globe, physics and science... They are all "just" theories...

Why not "Conspiracy Theory", too?

This agenda is VERY ancient. Good luck with your research. Be good to each other.

By the way, the solution is very easy: The United States has a seldom used law, entitled "The Logan Act" which states that no member of a secret society can stand in democratic elections, and requires that they declare their allegiance if it is other than to the people. This combined with an audit of the Federal Reserve, would offer the people the information they require to return Democracy to the people it serves.

If you study the Constitution, Banking practices and the Federal Reserve, secret societies and their relationship to the occult and ritual magic, you will quickly be able to see what is happening.

All of this material is available online, simply google search and you will be able to find as much as you wish to know. There are many whistleblowers who have dedicated their lives, and put them at risk, to expose this hidden information... Which is too compelling to simply dismiss, too strange, intricate and familiar to just conjure from thin air, as the Fed does with debt. 

If you're nature is too be cynical to this type of study, remember that if your primary world view was formed from mainstream broadcast material, the broadcaster's agenda is provide you with just enough information so you need not ask any deeper questions.

Good luck with your research!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_F53jwoXxSI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_F53jwoXxSI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/giJ5EJQ322o&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/giJ5EJQ322o&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

UK Green Advisor Says Cut Population in Half
Attenborough: cut population by half - Times Online

UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt
UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt - Times Online

ABC website tells kids when to die
ABC website tells kids when they should die | News | News.com.au


----------



## TruthDose (Nov 17, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> A Plane hit it. Its pretty easy to spot. There's people who post here who watched it happened, and who have friends who watched it happen.


 
That argument holds no water though, I post on Kitco and there are people who claimed to see a missile. The he said, she said stuff is out of the question. BUT if the 100+ video tapes confiscated with images of the attack do indeed show a plane, why are we not shown?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 17, 2009)

This thread lives again!

Around the anniversary of 9/11 I got really frustrated that we didn't know anything about it for certain... I'm pretty much over it now.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 17, 2009)

TruthDose said:


> BUT if the 100+ video tapes confiscated with images of the attack do indeed show a plane, why are we not shown?


 
+1

Isn't it better to just settle the argument than let it live?


----------



## TruthDose (Nov 17, 2009)

Pauly said:


> No, Z
> Zeitgeist, the movie Debunked - Introduction - Zeitgeist Exposed - Conspiracy Science - Conspiracies and Myths Refuted, Debunked, and Explained





Alot of this is weak, esp. the part on central banking, who ever wrote part 3 couldn't be more wrong


----------



## cvinos (Dec 17, 2009)

Here is a paper, peer-reviewed and published in an open physics journal, written by some people who went very far in the analysis of 9/11 debris. And do not get me wrong, I am not a conspiracy theorist, and so aren't the guys who wrote the paper. All are just people who want to know the truth, because the commission report was bullshit. I have made up my mind over 3 years and finally found that the buildings were actually blown up. I do not care what the implications are, because government is just a word anyways and the press and the media only are propaganda and public relation agencies. Worth almost nothing to the citizen and to the researcher. There to keep the sheep inside the fence.

Bentham Science Publishers

The page takes a while to load, so in the meantime you can read the abstract:

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. *The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.*"


----------



## Pauly (Dec 19, 2009)

No, Bentham is not peer reviewed. It is a vanity pay-to-publish journal. It's also laughable. So laughable that New Scientist (in a totally unrelated exercise) paid to have a paper of COMPLETE GARBAGE published, and... it passed! Completely unchecked.

Ryan Mackay did a good job of going through all the claims in this paper and debunking them, I suggest you look at it.

Here you go, Bentham = joke:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55759/

I take it you don't realise that since the paper was published Jones now claims that the nano-thermite was only the 'fuse' for 'hundreds of tons' of conventional explosives. Explosives that nobody heard, saw or felt, and caused no burst eardrums or shattered windows for miles around, or flashed sequentially down the building as they went off (as all controlled demolitions do). 

Also 'no planers' are retards, almost as bad as the 'VicSim' people who claim the towers were empty when the planes hit. Delusional.


----------



## cvinos (Dec 20, 2009)

It is not laughable at all. The work these people have done is as honest and professional just like the work of any good guitar builder. Just give it a read and see who is behind it.

Your two sources do not say the paper I have referred to was bullshit. They only refer to the *alleged* discrediting of *another* journal. It seems to be the case that another journal accepted the computer-generated fake paper, a journal that was just similarly named:



> In another headlined article at OpEdNews.com, [Managing] Editor Dr. John Moffett has again smeared the peer-reviewed paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by Bentham.org. *A different Bentham.org journal, The Open Information Science Journal, recently [accepted a hoax paper for publication]*, and 2 editors resigned [as a result]: Open Access Publisher Accepts Nonsense Manuscript for Dollars. See Dr. Moffett&#8217;s previous smear job rebutted by Dr. Michael Green, here: Pardon Our Dust, or, Why the World Trade Center Dust Matters. See Dr. Moffett&#8217;s current smear job here: 911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit



http://911reports.wordpress.com/200...c’-paper-by-association-again-by-erik-larson/

The real journal is quite unaffected by this, see the line of success in their news: http://www.bentham.org/News.htm .

The paper I referred to was actually peer-reviewed, and quite a number of researchers, not only from the US, put their name on it.

Moreover, architects and engineers all over the world support the paper as well, see:

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

And by the way, your statements in your post about "nobody heard, saw or felt" are simply wrong. The truth, showing in several interviews and news reports right on 9/11, seems quite the opposite.


----------



## TruthDose (Dec 21, 2009)

The easiest way to sum all of this up:

Who has benefited from the war(s)?


----------



## Hollowman (Dec 21, 2009)

The Bankers like IMF or World Bank they ALWAYS fund both sides of any war.


----------



## ryzorzen (Dec 30, 2009)

there's way too much false rebellion going on


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 30, 2009)

TruthDose said:


> That argument holds no water though, I post on Kitco and there are people who claimed to see a missile. The &#8220;he said, she said&#8221; stuff is out of the question. BUT if the 100+ video tapes confiscated with images of the attack do indeed show a plane, why are we not shown?



It holds no water? You can watch tons of videos that show a fucking plane. I Cant believe i'm having this delayed internet argument. I watched a fucking plane hit a fucking tower on live TV.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 31, 2009)

As did I, but he's talking about the Pentagon there, Ace.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Dec 31, 2009)

Yeah, no-one doubts that planes flew into the WTC, it's the Pentagon that there's never been any concrete evidence for.


----------



## coupe89 (Jan 1, 2010)

I saw pictures of plane parts on the Pentagon's lawn.


----------



## DeathMetalDean (Jan 1, 2010)

if you're interested in this you'd be interested in the movie Zeitgeist.
My brother's into all that stuff


----------



## stuz719 (Jan 3, 2010)

Hollowman666 said:


> The Bankers like IMF or World Bank they ALWAYS fund both sides of any war.





In what way? Where is the evidence?


----------



## Koshchei (Jan 3, 2010)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> I'm not going to weigh in on this debate one way or the other, there's so much misinformation and general shit-flinging... I don't believe it was a conspiracy, but I'm not going to rant on about just how misguided those that do are.
> 
> What I REALLY DON'T GET, however, is why the FUCK the crowd who believes that "Bush did it" weren't out there shooting people and burning down buildings!? If someone honestly has come to the definite conclusion that their government is pulling some vast fascist conspiracy to enhance its powers and wealth at the cost of thousands of citizens' lives, why are they just standing there making angry blog posts and not out there "voting from the rooftops"?
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that there are still Germans who don't believe that Hitler burned down the Reichstag in order to declare a state of emergency.

I don't know what happened with 9/11 and the towers, just what I saw, which was a pretty good impression of two planes hitting them. I also remember CNN blowing it out of all proportion by saying that car bombs had blown up Capital Hill, and that the president was dead, etc.

People have a tendency towards hysteria. HOWEVER, given the Bush Administration's track record with respect to waging a war against the US Constitution, the Geneva Convention, its own citizens, third world countries, etc, I find it hard to fault the conspiracy theorists. I suspect that in Bush's case, the truth is scarier than Orwell.

I hope that war crimes charges are pending, and that ALL dirty laundry is outed, both Clinton's role leading up to the dirty war, and Bush's actions in exacerbating it. This is the only way that the US Government can make a clean break and regain its position as a moral super power. I suspect though, that petty political partisanship will prevent this from ever happening "because it will strengthen the terrorists". Never mind the man behind the curtain shovelling papers into the tree chipper.

With respect to sniping from the roof tops, I can only say "bad idea". You start shooting people, you become a terrorist yourself (the media will eagerly sell the story that you're an Al Qaeda operative), and if you think that the government's crackdown on rights was brutal, waging a civil war on the legally "elected" government would quickly turn the country into a place that would make life in Iran seem democratic by comparison.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 3, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> As did I, but he's talking about the Pentagon there, Ace.


Its been a while. i forgot what the issue was. 
Still, they're gonna use 2 planes and a missle? and all the people missing from the pentagon flight? fake? Theres too much shit to make any of these conspiracy theories hold any water anyway.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 3, 2010)

DeathMetalDean said:


> if you're interested in this you'd be interested in the movie Zeitgeist.
> My brother's into all that stuff



Zeitgeist, the movie Debunked - Introduction


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 3, 2010)

Metal Ken said:


> Still, they're gonna use 2 planes and a missle? and all the people missing from the pentagon flight? fake? Theres too much shit to make any of these conspiracy theories hold any water anyway.


 
Well, I'm making all of my comments from a neutral perspective, but in response to this comment: Not really - some of the conspiracy theories actually take a whole lot of things into consideration... the problem is that people say "There's still too many things that aren't explained by this alternative theory, so it just doesn't hold any water.", but when a particular theory expands and DOES encompass all relevant points of data, the same people say "Oh come on now, that's outrageous! To think that all of those things have gone under the radar!", and then when its explained how the public and perhaps even most of the government was/is fooled and kept in the dark, the disbelief is taken to an even farther extreme... so the point here is that if there is a conspiracy going on here, most of us aren't going to believe it even if a high ranking official comes out and tells us about it.. which has actually happened in some cases, in the form of whistleblowing, because the media, at large, is well controlled here in the states and in certain places abroad(this is no secret)


----------



## TruthDose (Jan 18, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> As did I, but he's talking about the Pentagon there, Ace.



Yeah, I definitely don't doubt planes hit WTC, but then again no plane hit WTC 7... 



coupe89 said:


> I saw pictures of plane parts on the Pentagon's lawn.



True, fragments of what SHOULD be there, the engines were "vaporized by the jet fuel" and the papers, passports of the "terrorists" survived, in such good condition that the gov't was able to identify them....
I don't buy that.



stuz719 said:


> In what way? Where is the evidence?



Have you looked into this yourself yet, or do you want me to dig it up for you?



Metal Ken said:


> Its been a while. i forgot what the issue was.
> Still, they're gonna use 2 planes and a missle? and all the people missing from the pentagon flight? fake? Theres too much shit to make any of these conspiracy theories hold any water anyway.



If you think about it, isn't the official story from the 9/11 Commission Report a conspiracy theory?

the phrase "conspiracy theory" has such a negative tone to it, thanks to the governmedia


----------

