http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/05/60minutes/main2066624.shtml

Are you serious? That SAME article says the list is so flawed that people named Robert Johnson get pulled aside when they obviously aren't the guy, but the government purposefully put the terrorists on the no fly list?

It's a government data dump, there will be mistakes. In addition, it is standard to leave people and documents flagged even after their death. There are still passports from the 70s that will get you tackled at the airport, even though the person who it is registered was captured or killed. Know why?

Terrorists recycle paperwork. That's why they don't bother to take people off. Even if they had a reason to take them off, not everybody's name is going to get taken off. It's just the way paperwork works.

Did you read this article?

I never said I hate you, but its good to know you dont like me

You know, I would like to read the conspiracy theories in this thread but I just suffered a migraine not too long ago and I'm not terribly interested in revisiting that again.

I am not familiar with the procedures and formalities on this, so you could indeed be right. I simply looked at it as 1 of 3 things. The terrorists are indeed alive, they siimply were leaving names on to create further fear among us, or the government is screwing something up and theres more than meets the eye. This may be altogether unrelated to 9/11, but I thought it was an interesting piece.

Or with any of the other knowledge necessary to make some of the grand conclusions you are.

So let me get this straight. You see various, however unlikely, possibilities of something else happening in an event. And you take these possibilities and label one of them as "truth". That doesn't seem logical.

I hope you have more evidence than a clearly poorly-designed government document from a possibly incompetent agency. The article you linked, oddly enough, support more of the idea that the government screwed up than any hint of the planes being remotely controlled.

Tell me, how familiar are you with controlled demolition? Did you know, for example, that the tallest structural steel building ever imploded was only 439 feet tall? That the project took 33 men almost eight months (about as long as Bush had been in office, and obviously a building twice as large would have taken considerably longer) and an unbelievable amount of equipment to complete? All this despite the fact that the building was no longer in use and the demolition crew could move about freely.

If you didn't know, now you do. A controlled demolition of those buildings would have been, without exaggeration, impossible to carry out in secret.



It's comical that you think I haven't. The fact of the matter is that anyone with Google and a free half-hour can disprove most of these suspicions, and most of the rest are impossible to disprove because they're based on unsourced claims.

This is not the first time I've had this discussion. This is not a knee-jerk reaction to your theories. I'm quite familiar with your claims, and I know without a doubt that they're wrong because I've taken the time to check them out myself. I'd recommend you check some of them with sources whose names aren't "9/11 Truth" or some varation thereof.

Let me begin then, in 1962, with something known as "Operation Northwoods." It was proposed by the DOD and was designed to gain American support for military action against various countrys, specifically Cuba, as tensions between Fidel and the US were on the rise. It advocated various terrorist attacks including the hijacking of places and their subsequent violent destruction on American soil. In the end, the plans were rejected by Kennedy and he was eventually assassinated (a completely separate issue, I know).

Now, onto Building 7. It gave the obvious appearance of a controlled demolition, but theres more to it. The plane was not hit by planes or even debris, and yet it fell. Many of the other buildings ( I believe 4, 5, and 6) were hit with tons of damage and yet remained standing. I will also cite a PBS documentary in which the owner of Building 7, Larry Silverstein, is quoted as saying they decided to "pull it." This same man, also took out a multi-billion dollar policy just 6 months proir to 9/11 and fought vigorously against his insurance companies for the $7B. Also, in the official 9/11 comission report, building 7 is not even mentioned whatsoever, neither is it explained in subsequent meetings and hearings. And while we are on the subject of demolition, let me address the twin towers. The fire fighters who were close the the wreckage have said that they heard a series of explosions right before the towers collapsed, as I said before, you can hear them in the videos. Many respected revered scientists and engineers believe that these were required to fully bring down the building in the manner which it happened. They also attribute the lung poisoning and various deaths of 9/11 wreckage survivors to the burnt Thermite which was planted in there. Y ou ca see the molen lava like footage in many videos. ( I discussed this before). - Although I do admit there are 2 clear sides to this argument.

As far as prior knowledge goes. Bush handled that initial report (the one in the classroom) extremely unprofessionally and unpatriotically. Now you could completely attritube this to Bush being an incoherent moron. But let me also add that when asked about when he actually knew about it, he has given two TELEVISED responses. One of them obviously being that he heard about the first plane when he was in the classrooom. The second was during his re-election campaign in which he described seeing it right before he went in and saying "what a bad pilot." As for Cheney, Norman Mineta, the Secretary of Transportation gave a documented testimony that a young military officer had reported to him on flight 93 saying "its 50 miles out. 30 miles out," "The plane is 10 miles out," the guy also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" Yelled, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

Finally, I point to the obvious disasterous course we have allowed our government to take our country since the event. You may disagree with everything I have said and everything conspiracy theorists say and you may be able to counter every piece of evidence. But there is one thing nobody can deny, and that is the fact that our government has since abused its power and completely deceieved us. By creating an overwhelming amount of fear through 9/11 and subsequent events including the creation of the "terror alert," and the"foiled plots" (eg. water bottles, NYC subway, JFK Airport), we become crippled and allow our government to decide what to do. THis has lead to the absolute devastation in the Middle East especially, Afghanistan and Iraq. Only now are people starting to question Iraq and ask if the thousands that have died out there have been worth removing "terrorism" and Oil. Ask yourself if our government could have taken this sort of senseless and erroneous action that it has, before 9/11. And I dont even need to discuss the Patriot Act, I think everybody knows how stupid that has been. But when people are crippled by fear and trepidation, they lose their sense of balanced and logical thinking and easily cling to the idea of "erradicating terrorism and the axis of evil." The government knows this very well and have completely cashed in on it.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

FAIL.

You can go on and on all day, but all the presuppositions to all your arguments are going to be laughably weak. It's all fine and good for a cheap action movie, but if you actually believe this stuff, you're living in a dream world. There are plenty of problems in this world with out manufacturing them.

All of that seems romantic, yes. The possibility is most certainly there (It would be silly to outright disagree with some of the conspiracies that have been pointed out) and I certainly wouldn't be surprised. There isn't enough proof, though. There's only half-assed considerations and too-quickly-drawn conclusions.

"What's that thing coming out of the bottom of the plane?"
"HOLY **** IT'S A MISSILE OUR GOVERNMENT LIED!"

"We heard explosions."
"OH MY GOD THE GOVERNMENT BLEW UP THOSE BUILDINGS!"

You could do that all day. Show me some hard EVIDENCE instead of possibilities.

I just hate that a bunch of people hate Bush so much that they want him to have done it, and so go on to portray their ignorance of the subject as facts. They should go ahead and admit they don't know what they're talking about and defer to the investigative comities that are chock full of actual experts.

Seriously, it's easier to let Bush's actions speak for themselves rather than to construct elaborate, implausible conspiracies around him.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=trade+center+7&pl=true

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDx1GLqvBO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auR4RumZEnQ

And your calling my information invalid?

Uh...you might wanna consider a different simile there, bud.

Just do me a favor and save or remember this post for the next 15 months or however long you can. Then come back and see if Im still dreaming.


Let's just close this thread, both sides have made enough arguments.

"Electrons have a very peculiar behavior, they well not turn a corner."

Hahahaha, what an idiot. This guy's just spouting a bunch of pseudoscientific technobabble.

You've been studying this for years and you still believe "pull it" is demolition slang? Care to guess how long it took me to find this page? Here's a hint: It wasn't years.

And you still believe that Silverstein deliberately profited off the destruction of the WTC? Despite the fact that he kept the property and is now spending more than he got from the insurance payoff on the rebuliding?

I could go on, but if you haven't figured out yet from the responsese you've gotten in this thread that the things you believe about the WTC attacks are based on information that's either incomplete or flat-out wrong, then I'm not sure what good it will do.

Hahahaha I can't believe you just posted that. It completely debunks all of your claims.

You didn't even read the page you linked to as "proof." You are the apex of idiocy.

Not really, read it again

I must be dense. Please, point out exactly what is wrong with that article?

And also, if it does support the idea of a conspiracy, why would it be a .gov site? Try reading it yourself.



1. Information is either false or true. There is no reasoning there. Info can't be "invailid".

2. That's not information, it's satire. Seriously, explain your way around anything in the second link. Maddox may be abusive, but he's usually right.

I think he thinks it provides false information to cover up the conspiracy.

I must admit, I was surprised when it happened and I'm still surprised that tower 1 fell. Considering where it was hit, as well as the structure of the building, it just doesn't "seem" like it should have fallen. I fully acknowledge it fell because of the plane impact, though, it's just really surprising to me that the building wasn't engineered well enough to survive such a collision (even though I fully understand that when the towers were built, the largest airliners in existence were much smaller than the planes that hit them). Now tower 2 was just a goner. It was hit in the perfect spot.

It did survive the hit, but the steel used didn't withstand the high heat. They have steels now that would easily withstand it.

Already addressed in my last post. It's clear that when Silverstein said "pull it," he was referring to the group of firemen in the building.



Ah, yes. The cell phones. The person who wrote that page said that it wasn't clear how many of the calls were on cell phones and how many were on airphones. Maybe it wasn't clear in the Commission Report, but that information is available elsewhere. There were two cell phone calls, the rest were made on airphones. Given the low altitude the plane was at, I don't think two successful phone calls is exactly straining credibility.



Well, this is fun. A bunch of text. Care to explain so that I don't have to read the whole thing trying to figure out which insignificant detail you've taken as indisputable evidence of a government conspiracy?



What Emon said. This debunks pretty much everything you've offered so far.



I think you misunderstood Kirby's request for hard evidence.



Loose Change? Seriously? You're telling me that you accepted Loose Change as evidence without taking the ten minutes you would have needed to find and read one of the dozens of Web sites set up solely for the purpose of debunking this video?



More Alex Jones. Have you ever seriously asked yourself why you believe this stuff? It can't be the evidence, because you still haven't shown me anything I hadn't already seen.

All of your sources are saying exactly what you've already said, and are not furthering your point. None of this is evidence. It is possibility. Every single one of your points has a "There's a possibility it was a coverup, and there is possibility that it happened as we believe it happened." I'm a big skeptic on 9/11 and I know what a government in need of power is capable of. I still won't sit through an hour long video that claims truth from fuzzy photographs, people's gut reactions, and wishful thinking without questioning it. If your opinion is to question and be skeptical on everything, than be skeptical about the ideas presented to you, too.

There are not EVEN possibilities.

There simply isn't room for the possibilities these whack jobs think exist.

It's sick. I kind of want to round them all up in a time machine and stick them inside those buildings. Then maybe they'll understand.

Yes, please point out what in the NIST FAQ actually supports anything you've said.

I don't like George Bush.

I don't like anyone in his administration.

Yet every time someone mentions this, it still manages to some how make me wonder why people can be so retarded.

What in the **** did you REALLY expect him to do?

Dash out of the room into a phone booth, change into his Bushman outfit and fly out to the towers? Hovering infront of the still whole tower, stop sign in his right hand, left hand outstretched in a stop motion. As if to say, YOU MAY NOT CROSS THIS STREET TERRIST. And as the plane approaches using the force he redirects the plane's path into the nearby upper bay, saving everyone on board, he punishes the terrists within using his mighty BUSH STRENGTH. Returning then to the the still standing towers to use his mighty BUSH STRENGTH to prevent the hit tower's collapse. Saving the lives of THOUSANDS.

If you expected that, you're a moron.

What the **** did you SERIOUSLY expect him to do or be able to do at that moment? SERIOUSLY, BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW OF ONE THING HE COULD HAVE DONE THAT WOULD HAVE MEANT A DAMN TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE ENTIRE SITUATION BY LEAVING THAT CLASSROOM EARLY.

NEWSFLASH DUMBASSES. The President isn't the only member of the state. Everything that could have been done was already being done long before he even heard about the attacks.

This goes along with me agreeing that '93 was shot down.

But anyway, can someone sum up to me what happened with building 7? I haven't really heard the story, I've just heard people (Rosie O'Donnel, Zoso) mention it.

Did you even read what you posted? I skimmed it and it says that there was no controlled explosion.

Molten debris started fires, fire weakened structure, structure gave out, conspiracy theorists say they saw demo charges going off in video of building collapsing.

I agree that there wasnt a lot he really could have done while in a classroom. And I acknowledge that this example has become a platitude for "conspiracy theorists" all over the place. I was simply trying to use the example as a case for Bush's possible foreknowledge of what was going on. After he was told "Sir, a second plane has just hit the trade centers, America is under attack." He sat there absolutely expressionless and staring out onto the floor as if deep in thought. If you look at his face and again, with his two mismatch statements I said earlier, it looks to me like he knew this was going to happen and he was not really effected by it, he seemed to be thinking about what he was going to say to people about it afterwards. And I know its a completely separate issue, but most people have come to understand by now, how he had always wanted to return to Iraq. We can all argue about the WMD, the fake info, his Father, etc...But I think that after this tragic event, it was easier to justify the need to go over there.

A vague example, I realize. But to me, these mannerisms are very indicative.

Still waiting for this.

Nothing like a good conspiracy theory.

Is it all related to the fact that the human brain simply cant always handle evil such as 9/11?. Then the brain rationlises it as "No it must have been a conspiracy, no one is that evil".

How is "our own federal government, the government we pay for, vote for, and expect to do things in our best interest killed a few thousand civilians to start wars" less evil than "a group of people who dislike the U.S., the ideals it spreads, and the damage it has helped create in their region hijacked some planes to spread fear"?

This is why I don't like conspiracy theorists. Instead of learning from past mistakes that have fueled problems like this, they'd rather claim it was all smoke and mirrors from another group and the wrong-doings of both sides get ignored because "duuuude, like, there are these experts, maaaaan."

It's more that they can't deal with the deaths of so many innocent lives being caused by a couple of radicals. They need to think it's something more complex, planned and orchestrated for it to be okay.

Same thing with JFK conspiracy theories. People don't like believing that a great man could be killed so easily by some lone nut.