9/11 : Ten Years?!

[beorhthelm]

again, i could call the official story a link to a large conspiracy theory.

so do i. but where are the credible, consistant explainations? instead, lets deflect attention to and other bunch of links. another aunt sally of Al-Qaeda, no one whose paid attention believes they are an organised terrorist group. however they are a connected group, with people having similar ideals and objectives. but its rather irrelevent who or what they are, its just a tidy label for "the bad guys". this doesn't mean there arent a bunch of fundementalist, anti-western nutters out there willing to kill themselves and take as many with them.

 

[brunswick]

so do i. but where are the credible, consistant explainations? instead, lets deflect attention to and other bunch of links. another aunt sally of Al-Qaeda, no one whose paid attention believes they are an organised terrorist group. however they are a connected group, with people having similar ideals and objectives.

credible, consistant explainations in the midst of a worldwide conspiracy are hard to come by....it is murky waters....the nature of the beast.

but on a lighter note, when aunt sally saw the official report and the MSM repetition this was her face.

"gummidge, this was most definitely an inside job."

 

[beorhthelm]

but on a lighter note, when aunt sally saw the official report and the MSM repetition this was her face.

and on a more serious note, why demonise all mainstream media and thereby dismiss everything they ever produce, when you want explainations. they might offer something. unless you believe that every person who works for every media organisation is part of the worldwide conspiracy. which you probably do. i leave it there, the distraction from the point worked. (you're very good at that).

 

[brunswick]

and on a more serious note, why demonise all mainstream media and thereby dismiss everything they ever produce, when you want explainations. they might offer something. unless you believe that every person who works for every media organisation is part of the worldwide conspiracy. which you probably do. i leave it there, the distraction from the point worked. (you're very good at that).

of course i do not trust the MSM, they are corporate giants who are present for profit not for the good of peoples knowledge. but of course, within these mega corps some good decent ppl (tho slightly oblivious) exist.

i do not see any points that i have dodged, i am not getting into compounds regarding explosives as i am not an expert - but that to my sense looks to me like a big explosion.

let us round up - here is the ULTIMATE CONSPIRACY THEORY regarding 911.

 

[brixtonA23]

Just imagine if Kennedy was actually shot by a lone assassin, as this where it seems, the genesis of conspiracy theories originate. There is a lot of evidence to give this some credence. But honestly, this is now spiraling out of control over the last few decades and really a bad time to post thoughts about the 9/11 bombing. The twin towers were designed differently to modern high structures. The support was held centrally with floors attached to this. As the core lost integrity through heat the support to the floor held too much weight, hence the shocking 'pancake' fall of one floor onto another. The weight by individual floor doubled hence the collapse. Building 7's foundations were undermined by the collapse and subsequently fell as though controlled. Really we should leave this as a thread and I live a long way from Langley. Can't wait for Nov 5th if you want conspiracy.

 

[beorhthelm]

i do not see any points that i have dodged, i am not getting into compounds regarding explosives as i am not an expert - but that to my sense looks to me like a big explosion.

right, so you havent seen rolling footage of the seconds before? you dont need to be an expert to see the collapse of 20 floors. you could not possibly be expert on all the other threads of the conspriacy, yet believe them. and this missing the point that CD theory is about multiple floors were detonated on command, the final death throe of the top of the tower is not a feature of the mainstream CD theory (or so ive seen), their theory relies on explosions below. (presumably timed at the point the top gives way? or there is an detonation there first? possible but ive not seen this still used before as evidence towards CD).

 

[Bold Seagull]

you can go on about "how" the explosives, compounds, and chemicals reacted to create the explosion but any fool surely can see that IS an explosion of STEEL floors above where the supposed planes entered.....planes just cannot do this.

Concrete and pre-stressed reinforced concrete will actually explode for a number of reasons, I've actually witnessed a controlled small scale example of this at a testing facility. Concrete is very strong in compression, but incredibly weak in tension. The prestressed steels are encased in concrete so that when it sets, the steel cures and effectively pull the concrete into compression. Any tension delivered into the structural element is therefore dealt with by the steel and not the concrete. However, heat and additional tension can in dramatic circumstances can the components to dramatically fail, and believe me they do explode.

Concrete actually exploded under the M1 early this year, from a car fire, and effectively domestic fuel (not a jet passenger air craft fire):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13121253

 

[NMH]

i could, but it would only serve for replies of "that is just text from a webpage," but research what robin cook said shortly before his death, and research the CIA involvement in training people in the middle east in the early 90's.



so you think this image below can happen from 2 planes going into a building with no explosives? explosives can easily be placed in a large building by a crack group of people.

now that is a conspiracy theory.

here are 5 photos for the Thermite "debunkers" such as yourself.

the big question away from all the big questions like demolition, norad, b7, and planes (that seemed to be all grouped as "conspiracy theories" is this:

who was to gain from 911? this answer is america - invasion into middle east, more control laws, boosted economy, and less freedom of speech - for only a few thousand deaths.

Again - the US govt didn't need any elaborate excuse, killing planeloads of people by getting SOMEONE to fly them into their biggest buildings and the Pentagon.
They already WERE in the Middle East with Desert Storm, and so were we.
'Control laws'? What does that, and 'freedom of speech' do for the US? We now have to waste time and expense undressing to go through airports, and the economies lost in the TTT's don't help the US either.

Not much of these theories makes much sense from the basis on up, and someone could make up a conspiracy theory for just-about anything that went on in history.
What does anyone hope to gain by peddling such stuff?

In the case of bin Laden, he was a terrorist leader and those sort DID stand to gain from 9/11.
It's possible that the leading mastermind of 9/11 was on one of the planes I could imagine.

 

[colinz]

just because you and some others cant get your tiny mind round the idea that two US networks might have been the same footage, it doesnt mean theres only one source. it beggers believe this is even considered odd, TV stations routinly syndicate footage when they are first on the scene or have the best shot.

I mean 5 US networks broadcasting the footage SIMULTANEOUSLY, as illustrated here.

This obviously doesn't include the BBC footage. (@28min &30sec). BBC Sept. 11, 2001 8:34 am - 9:16 am : BBC TV : Free Download Streaming : Internet Archive

On the above site is also footage from the 5 other networks.
September 11 Television Archive : Free Movies : Download & Streaming : Internet Archive.

 

[beorhthelm]

I mean 5 US networks broadcasting the footage SIMULTANEOUSLY, as illustrated here.

i rememberd half way through the video that i dont care enough. so many edits and conflicting points being made. it even contradicts your earlier point as each of the footage is from a different angle! but dont let that stop you. ever thought to ask a tv studio professional what the beeps might be? the author of that video goes from time signals (good spot, needs enquiry) to this is evidence its all faked footage... a bit of a leap. the not so tiny plane shaped holes seen for the next hour isnt a problem for this chap. (no doubt believing carefully positioned explosives cut the skin walls to look like that. obvious). believe what you want because it doesnt mean anything, the world carries on.

 

[colinz]

the not so tiny plane shaped holes seen for the next hour isnt a problem for this chap. (no doubt believing carefully positioned explosives cut the skin walls to look like that. obvious).

It's only a problem if the CGI plane was inserted into real footage.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's only a problem if the CGI plane was inserted into real footage.

maybe you dont understand: there is plane shape hole on all the footage for the next hour or so until the buliding collapses. so the CGI effects are in place for all that time? maybe you're new to this and haven't looked, but you can find truthers that will explain how the shape was faked with explosives rigged in the offices (inward blasting, unknown to any explosives experts), others will prove that a non-commercial jet was used. three different ideas that flatly contradict each other. they cant all be true. there should be a "head explodes" emote, as this usually happens to me discussing 9/11, i cant comprehend how people ignore how the theories contradict and debunk each other.

 

[NMH]

There could be a thread dedicated to taking apart every step in preparing and conducting an attack, if actually done by the US on itself.

Explosive experts required, and access to plant them. That would have been done overnight surely? And without anyone seeing or suspecting anything was different.
Rigging 4 planes so they can be remotely(?) made to fly to their targets. Just acquiring access to the planes for the purpose would be a tough ask! Passengers made cel-phone calls from at least one of those planes, that would have to have been rigged too.
Coordinating this venture and making sure that all cooperation was to stay absolutely top secret?

Concocting and supporting a conspiracy theory is easy if you don't think with the backing of reality - try concocting how people would go about this task.

I certainly do suspect there are people who never got past Action Hero comics, to live in a cartoon world of unreality like this.

 

[levirocks]

The only thing that really intrigues me about the whole affair is, Why are there so many thick people in the world that believe the U.S Government would kill its own citizens.

Open your eyes mate.

 

[brunswick]

In the case of bin Laden, he was a terrorist leader.

not got much time today to post in here, but this post just shows how people j do not read books or do lone research, and then enter the arena of debate loaded with MSM repetition.

what proof have you got of this comment? he was mates with the western elite for years.

to date, there is no proof linking OBL to 911 - none whatsoever. none in the official report, none anywhere.

 

[levirocks]

OBL Denied it.

Good thread and good arguments both ways.

Must always remember the Men and Women that died though and not treat this as some kind of funny joke.

 

[beorhthelm]

not got much time today to post in here, but this post just shows how people j do not read books or do lone research, and then enter the arena of debate loaded with MSM repetition.

what proof have you got of this comment? he was mates with the western elite for years.

if you are denying bin Laden was a terrorist leader (all NMH said), then you are guilty of the same reliance on biased information as you claim happens with the media. Bin Laden was matey, then got really pissed off when he wasnt involved in protecting his homeland. he certainly had motivation.

He Denied It.

but then he claimed responibility for it. which version do you want to accept? personally, wouldnt trust him either way.

 

[levirocks]

if you are denying bin Laden was a terrorist leader (all NMH said), then you are guilty of the same reliance on biased information as you claim happens with the media. Bin Laden was matey, then got really pissed off when he wasnt involved in protecting his homeland. he certainly had motivation.




but then he claimed responibility for it. which version do you want to accept? personally, wouldnt trust him either way.

It all makes you not want to trust anyone!! Interesting subject and see both sides to have valid points.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

One thing that has always stunned me about 9/11 was that less than three thousand people died. It just seems an incredibly small figure when you consider that, as well as the Twin Towers, it includes the people on the four airplanes plus those in the Pentagon, which must amount to around 4-500 non-Twin Towers deaths at least.

 

[NMH]

not got much time today to post in here, but this post just shows how people j do not read books or do lone research, and then enter the arena of debate loaded with MSM repetition.

what proof have you got of this comment? he was mates with the western elite for years.

to date, there is no proof linking OBL to 911 - none whatsoever. none in the official report, none anywhere.

Erm - watching Al Jazeera for any amount of time back in the day, was enough proof that he was a terrorist leader mate! What are YOU thinking?
I did NOT link him to 9/11 events myself either, I simply suggested he was the sort who did have something to gain from (any fall of Western culture in the US in particular).
Clinton stated his desire to kill the guy, well before 9/11 anyway. You can hardly call THAT being "mates" !

I brought his name up in response to previous posts, but you seem to have blundered in about 'people' not reading books! Duh, howsabout reading posts?