A couple of days ago I watched a documentary on the theory that the terrorist attacks were actively caused by the US government and subsequently covered up as an attack by Al-Qaida. It was about an hour long and was actually really well done compared with the other stuff I've watched about this conspiracy theory. The video can be found here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=alex+jones+loose+change) . A lot (if not most) of what this documentary presents as "evidence" is circumstantial at best and a lot of it could be explained without a conspiracy.

Nonetheless, I do think that this documentary brings up some good questions and inconsistencies in what the government claims to have happened on 9/11. Now I am definitely not saying that I believe the government attacked and killed its own citizens, but I do find this documentary incredibly interesting.

Anyone else seen it? What are everyone's thoughts on this theory and such?

The government is convering something up, but it's not that they planned 9/11, I think it's just negligence and incompetence.

like all good conspiracy theories, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Whenever I read or see some conspiracy theories, I always do a bit of thinking, then ask myself "How many people would it take to pull it off?" and "How could so many people be convinced to never, ever tell the secret?"

Most any of the conspiracy theories that I've even known can be debunked quickly by analyzing just those two simple questions. The second one, keeping the secret, is the one that's most often the determining factor ...how many "top secret" people are now writing books and going on speaking tours to tell the whole fuckin' world their "secrets"?

Baron Max

indeed, baron.

Whenever I read or see some conspiracy theories, I always do a bit of thinking, then ask myself "How many people would it take to pull it off?" and "How could so many people be convinced to never, ever tell the secret?"

Most any of the conspiracy theories that I've even known can be debunked quickly by analyzing just those two simple questions. The second one, keeping the secret, is the one that's most often the determining factor ...how many "top secret" people are now writing books and going on speaking tours to tell the whole fuckin' world their "secrets"?

Baron Max

The conspirators do not have to keep the conspiracy secret. They just have to keep anybody who would talk about the conspiracy marginalized. This is the lesson that I get from the Kennedy assassination.

The 9-11 commision ignored the issues the conspiracy theorists wanted resolved. Why?

The 9-11 commision ignored the issues the conspiracy theorists wanted resolved. Why?

Perhaps they were having a group laugh at how ridiculous the conspiracy theorists sounded?

The attacks themselves were not a government conspiracy, but some of the specific details about the attacks are. For example, the government claims that Flight 93 was brought down by a scuffle between the terrorists and the passengers, but most believe the plane was shot down. There is evidence pointing to it, and we can also point to the "slip of the tounge" Rumsfeld had about the attacks.

Also, some people think it was a missle that hit the Pentagon, not a jet. However, I believe that the 747 did hit the Pentagon, but it followed the missle. I think the airforce tried to shoot it down before it hit the Pentagon but failed, and instead the missle hit the Pentagon and than the plane hit right after.

A
Anyone else seen it? What are everyone's thoughts on this theory and such?

Is your real name Rip Van Winkle? Where you been the past 5 years? We all talked about it, realized it was true, shook our heads about it and are watching for the repeat to justify an attack on Iran.

Quarkmoon:

For such a well-publicised event, your conspiracy theories seem a little far fetched.

For example, the government claims that Flight 93 was brought down by a scuffle between the terrorists and the passengers, but most believe the plane was shot down. There is evidence pointing to it, and we can also point to the "slip of the tounge" Rumsfeld had about the attacks.

What's the evidence? What "slip of the tongue"?

Also, some people think it was a missle that hit the Pentagon, not a jet. However, I believe that the 747 did hit the Pentagon, but it followed the missle.

We know for sure that a plane is unaccounted for, unless it hit the Pentagon. So, I think there is no doubt a plane hit.

So, where's the evidence for the missile?

And what's more likely - the Pentagon was hit by just a plane, or a plane AND a missile? Common sense says a plane on its own is enough to explain the observed facts.

I think the airforce tried to shoot it down before it hit the Pentagon but failed, and instead the missle hit the Pentagon and than the plane hit right after.

What makes you think that?

Quarkmoon:

For such a well-publicised event, your conspiracy theories seem a little far fetched.

Well-publicised yes, but well documented? How is it that the WTC attacks were caught on numerous cameras but the Pentagon attack was not?

What's the evidence? What "slip of the tongue"?

Dumbsfeld's slip can be found right here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/index.html

The evidence is that the Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky: http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

So, wreckage found miles away. If the plane hit straight into the ground as reported by the government, than the wreckage would be confined to a small area. If the plane is flying straight and level at high speed when it first touches the ground, then the wreckage will distribute itself into kind of like a fan shape over quite a large area. If the plane starts to break up in the air, particularly at significant height, then it will start to distribute pieces that will travel with the wind and be spread over sometimes many hundreds of square miles.

We know for sure that a plane is unaccounted for, unless it hit the Pentagon. So, I think there is no doubt a plane hit.

I agree.

So, where's the evidence for the missile?

No concrete evidence, although, does this look like a Boeing 747 jet to you? http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

And what's more likely - the Pentagon was hit by just a plane, or a plane AND a missile? Common sense says a plane on its own is enough to explain the observed facts.
What makes you think that?

Just my theory of events from piecing various evidence together. The official story that Flight 93 was brought down by a scuffle with the passengers is a little hard to believe given the evidence and the Dumbsfeld slip. And the official story that the jet hit the Pentagon sounds good, but that security footage tells a different story and it would explain the damage.

Quarkmoon:
For such a well-publicised event, your conspiracy theories seem a little far fetched.
ROFL and to think last night Quark was castigating me for spreading Anti-American conspiracicies ! Ill make a note of this one .

For detailed proposals for the posibility of a govt backed and even caused and orcastrated 9-11.. see this website...

http://www.theresistancemanifesto.com

-MT

ROFL and to think last night Quark was castigating me for spreading Anti-American conspiracicies ! Ill make a note of this one .

There is a difference between saying the government orchastrated the attacks and saying the government covered up certain aspects of it. Terrorists brought down the towers, and terrorists hit the Pentagon. The little details in between is what I'm talking about.

See, Brian, you can have theories and ideas without being a looney, however sadly for you, you have crossed that "looney" line miles ago. :p

Every politician or official knows something like that would never stay a secret.

As far as the plane in Pa. wasnt their a phone call from a passenger stating they were about to take over the plane or something like that.

Too many other things to show it happened pretty much as we know it anything otherwise is pure fantasy.

Quarkmoon:

How is it that the WTC attacks were caught on numerous cameras but the Pentagon attack was not?

Just luck, really. The question is not so much why the Pentagon attack wasn't captured more, but why the WTC attacks were.

Which would you say would be caught on film more often - the WTC or the Pentagon?

Dumbsfeld's slip can be found right here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/ru...lt93/index.html

So, this is it:

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

Is that all there is? Pretty flimsy base on which to build a conspiracy theory, if you ask me. Rumsfled sounds like he was saying "the people who attacked the US in New York AND shot down the plane over Pennsylvania". But it doesn't make sense that these would be the same people - i.e. the terrorists - does it?

This sounds like a simple slip of the tongue. If he'd thought about it, he probably would have said "crashed the plane in Pennsylvania", or something.

The evidence is that the Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky.

So, wreckage found miles away. If the plane hit straight into the ground as reported by the government, than the wreckage would be confined to a small area. If the plane is flying straight and level at high speed when it first touches the ground, then the wreckage will distribute itself into kind of like a fan shape over quite a large area. If the plane starts to break up in the air, particularly at significant height, then it will start to distribute pieces that will travel with the wind and be spread over sometimes many hundreds of square miles.

This wreckage wasn't spread over hundreds of miles. I'm not a crash expert, so I can't really say whether 8 miles would be inconsistent with the generally accepted explanation. Can you? And can the (other) internet conspiracy theorists?

No concrete evidence, although, does this look like a Boeing 747 jet to you? http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

Seeing a 747 crash into a building is not something you see every day. How do you know what to expect?

The official story that Flight 93 was brought down by a scuffle with the passengers is a little hard to believe given the evidence and the Dumbsfeld slip.

I think the conspiracy theory is a little hard to believe. But then again, I find most flimsy conspiracy theories hard to believe...

A couple of days ago I watched a documentary on the theory that the terrorist attacks were actively caused by the US government and subsequently covered up as an attack by Al-Qaida. It was about an hour long and was actually really well done compared with the other stuff I've watched about this conspiracy theory. The video can be found here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=alex+jones+loose+change) . A lot (if not most) of what this documentary presents as "evidence" is circumstantial at best and a lot of it could be explained without a conspiracy.

Nonetheless, I do think that this documentary brings up some good questions and inconsistencies in what the government claims to have happened on 9/11. Now I am definitely not saying that I believe the government attacked and killed its own citizens, but I do find this documentary incredibly interesting.

Anyone else seen it? What are everyone's thoughts on this theory and such?

i just feel you are being VERY naive if you DON'T understand how these power elites work......te very fact some of you are not sure it was an inside job bemuses me, considering the absurd offical stories etc

also, did that docu mention anything about occult symbolism to do with 9/11??
if ANYthing was to really put the bloody cherry on the bloody cake fo me it was finding out about occult symbolism all over '9/11'---explain THAT!

Just luck, really. The question is not so much why the Pentagon attack wasn't captured more, but why the WTC attacks were.

Which would you say would be caught on film more often - the WTC or the Pentagon?

But nothing? How can absolutely no one catch the Pentagon attack? Surely the Pentagon is a national landmark? Surely there would be people with cameras? I think there were cameras, and people did catch the attacks on tape. But they were confiscated. And the only footage allowed for release is a crappy security camera with frames missing. That's not suspicious to you in the slightest?

Is that all there is? Pretty flimsy base on which to build a conspiracy theory, if you ask me. Rumsfled sounds like he was saying "the people who attacked the US in New York AND shot down the plane over Pennsylvania". But it doesn't make sense that these would be the same people - i.e. the terrorists - does it?

This sounds like a simple slip of the tongue. If he'd thought about it, he probably would have said "crashed the plane in Pennsylvania", or something.

Are you surprised? I said it was a slip of the tounge, I didn't tout it as irrefutable evidence for my theory. Although I must ask, how do you jump from the term "crash" to "shot" by pure accident if it had no truth behind it? Why would the term "shot" pop into his head if that wasn't what he was thinking about? Suspicious, no?

This wreckage wasn't spread over hundreds of miles. I'm not a crash expert, so I can't really say whether 8 miles would be inconsistent with the generally accepted explanation. Can you? And can the (other) internet conspiracy theorists?

I explained that in my post. If the plane was brought down by a scuffle, than there are two scenarios that would happen. The plane would crash straight into the ground (although if that happened than it would be quite difficult to fight someone since you would be weightless) and the debris would be spread out in a reletively small area. The second scenario is if it crashed parallel to the ground which means means it would have been traveling quite fast, than the debris would be spread out in a fan shape which means there would be certain areas where the wreckage would spread.

However, what happened is debris was found scattered miles apart, with eye-witnesses claiming they saw burning debris falling from the sky. How do you explain that? Not even a tad bit suspicious?

Seeing a 747 crash into a building is not something you see every day. How do you know what to expect?

I can expect a bigger object and a larger explosion? Those planes are quite large I'll have you know.:)

I think the conspiracy theory is a little hard to believe. But then again, I find most flimsy conspiracy theories hard to believe...

Understood. I never claimed to have concrete evidence, however the evidence I have could certainly be considered suspicious at the very least.

But nothing? How can absolutely no one catch the Pentagon attack? Surely the Pentagon is a national landmark? Surely there would be people with cameras? I think there were cameras, and people did catch the attacks on tape.

Why do you think that? Just probability?

But they were confiscated.

Has anybody complained about their footage being confiscated? After all, it would have been worth a lot of money to news programmes at the time.

I said it was a slip of the tounge, I didn't tout it as irrefutable evidence for my theory. Although I must ask, how do you jump from the term "crash" to "shot" by pure accident if it had no truth behind it?

People make those kind of slips all the time. The plane crashed. Fell down, shot down, crashed down. All linked in the mind.

Why would the term "shot" pop into his head if that wasn't what he was thinking about? Suspicious, no?

Not particularly.

I explained that in my post. If the plane was brought down by a scuffle, than there are two scenarios that would happen. The plane would crash straight into the ground (although if that happened than it would be quite difficult to fight someone since you would be weightless) and the debris would be spread out in a reletively small area. The second scenario is if it crashed parallel to the ground which means means it would have been traveling quite fast, than the debris would be spread out in a fan shape which means there would be certain areas where the wreckage would spread.

However, what happened is debris was found scattered miles apart, with eye-witnesses claiming they saw burning debris falling from the sky. How do you explain that? Not even a tad bit suspicious?

Are you an expert on debris scatter patterns? I'm not, but maybe you are.

How do I explain debris falling from the sky? Well, I'm not sure. How many eyewitnesses are we talking about? What do you know about them? Are they people whose stories are likely to be reliable? In fact, were there any eyewitnesses, or are these supposed eyewitnesses simply made up by internet conspiracy theorists? What kind of evidence do you have, apart from conspiracy sites?

I can expect a bigger object and a larger explosion? Those planes are quite large I'll have you know.

How does the size of the explosion compare to the sizes of the explosions as the planes went into the WTC, in your opinion? Much smaller? About the same? What were the comparative sizes of the planes in each case? How much fuel did they have on board? How far did they penetrate?

I don't really expect you to have all the answers, but I'm trying to give you an idea of the kinds of questions I have when I hear this kind of thing. At this stage, the supposed evidence for the conspiracy is just too weak for me to take it seriously. But don't get me wrong: I haven't absolutely decided one way or the other.

As a private citizen, that is all the evidence I can muster. I have answers to your questions, but you will say I am not qualified, which is true! So, I'll just leave it at that. I will say this, you called the post-gazette.com website a conspiracy website. It's not, it's a regular news outlet. Check their other news articles, you won't see any conspiracy theories, just news. That's where I got the "eye-witness and scattered debris" article.

So, I'll just leave it at that. I will say this, you called the post-gazette.com website a conspiracy website.

No I didn't.

I'm just saying that reports of eyewitnesses are not always reliable.

Quarkmoon:
Just luck, really. The question is not so much why the Pentagon attack wasn't captured more, but why the WTC attacks were.

Which would you say would be caught on film more often - the WTC or the Pentagon?


well there was 700 japanese tourists there.

and that video really sucked too. how bout that pixellated image of a plane with what looks like a giant torpedoe. dont you think the ground crew would say "gee does that big thing belong there, never seen one oh those"


thats all i could see cause googooo crashed.
BULLOCKS.

As far as the plane in Pa. wasnt their a phone call from a passenger stating they were about to take over the plane or something like that.

That's another point of the story that doesn't hold up. You ever try to make a cell phone call from a moving airplane? :cool:

well there was 700 japanese tourists there.

What did they say about what they saw?

No I didn't.

I'm just saying that reports of eyewitnesses are not always reliable.

And the government is ALWAYS reliable.

There are WMD in Iraq. Really. I swear. On a stack of Bibles. Cross my heart and hope to die.

The conspirators do not have to keep the conspiracy secret. They just have to keep anybody who would talk about the conspiracy marginalized. This is the lesson that I get from the Kennedy assassination.

The 9-11 commision ignored the issues the conspiracy theorists wanted resolved. Why?


That is not completely true Nirakar. There is another alternative.

Flood the world with Conspiracy.

Why do you think The Da Vinci Code received so much public relations?

Everyone is talking about the Neo Con takeover of the USA government. So they take his novel about CATHOLICS messing around with conspiracy and taking over things. That satiates peoples need to talk about conspiracy. Everyone can point at catholics and blame them for conspiracy. Besides. After the plan to destroy Catholicism by constantly publicizing sex charges, this would be the coup de grace. Not only are they sex perverts, they are sneaky and conspiring too.

The public completely forgets the Israeli loyal Neo Con traitors controlling the USA right this minute. Wolfowitz at the World Bank. Bolton at the UN. Rumsfeld and Cheney in the WhiteHouse.

I just saw Barrack Obama bending the knee to the leader of Israel last week or so. I guess they have decided to annoint him as some kind of leader of their colony in North America.

Actually I can believe government negligence. Mostly on the part certain members of the Clinton administration.

Conspiracy, maybe on the part of the best conspirators and manipulators on the block. A group of people who have continually shown their disregard for your rights and prosperity. Then again even the slimiest democrat would think twice about attacking a civillian target, so i doubt it was a governetn conspiracy.

http://www.theresistancemanifesto.com/index.php

IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY...

john conner, may not be 100%... but he is pretty close... in anycase... the movement has value....

and i recommend his site...

i dont nessasarily believe in everything... but i dont have too....

50% is enough.....

the nwo... is real... its just a matter of what form it takes.

-MT

It's pretty clear that the U.S. government knew something was up in the summer of 2001. My personal guess is that the Bush administration had the intelligence that al-Qaeda was planning hijacking(s), and they probably thought that they intended to either play out the classic runway hostage drama, maybe take a planeload of passengers to another country, or else blow up planes in midair. Crashing the planes into buildings was probably anticipated but thought to be too remote a possibility. The bottom line for me is that I believe that they made a conscious decision to let al-Qaeda take their best shot. They did so for political reasons - to make it possible for them to do exactly what they have done in the last four years. They could have stopped it, but they didn't. You may disagree with WHY they didn't, but in the final analysis it comes down to a question of intentionally letting it happen or else incompetence of the most stunning magnitude. Take your pick.

It's pretty clear that the U.S. government knew something was up in the summer of 2001

Simon says prove it

My personal guess is that the Bush administration had the intelligence that al-Qaeda was planning hijacking(s), and they probably thought that they intended to either play out the classic runway hostage drama, maybe take a planeload of passengers to another country, or else blow up planes in midair.

Do you realize how much false intelligence comes through the intelligence-gathering services? Getting the information is only half the battle; the other half is determining whether or not it's true, how it could be true, why the suspect would want to do what they think he might do, what they would gain by it (both suspect and government), and asking themselves "how serious could this get", among other things.

That's another point of the story that doesn't hold up. You ever try to make a cell phone call from a moving airplane? :cool:

No. I have been on an airplane one time and could care less if i ever do it again. As far as making a call i dont see why you couldnt, but to say calls that we all heard from those planes are made up is comical.

The only thing i say is this- 9-11-2001 some scumbag fanatics board planes in Boston to slaughter as many innocent people as they can. Supposedly the creator of life will reward them by letting them fuck hundreds of virgins. You destroy this "creators" greatest work.....ahh what the point? it's too dumb to even try to understand.

But you know you guys talk about "new world order" and all that bs, I'll keep things just as they are cause i am as free as anyone living on this earth but if these fanatics get their way our freedom will be completely gone, they will rob, rape and pillage anyone who doesnt believe in their fantasy...which i wouldnt instead i would crawl miles over broken glass for freedom.....ANYWAY I HAD TO.

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq- Saddam was an evil tyrant, i've got no sympathy for him. Wonder what would have happend in post war Iraq and how much easier it would have been if all the countries asked to join the coalition would have? Maybe you people live in countries that were too afraid or had financial interest not to bring these people freedom.

I didnt vote for GWB but we live in a world where if your a pussy your dead.

Anyone who want to discuss the implications of AlQueda getting WMD's we can do that too.

right. so you argument seems to be that the 'other' the 'enemy' is efil. for it is a fundamental ictatorship which persecutes Gays, women, and any who question the imposed religious laws.......yes. we agree. who the fuk would want to live there. correct

so you have them in the balck cowboy gear. meanwhile from there you assume that the West as led by superpoer ameria is the good dude in te white cowboy how. yeah? wel bullshit. totally limited view in my opinion

your view is utterly ignore-any of USA's etc total involvement overt and especially covert behaviour that not only conDONES dictatorships with their tyrants, but IMPLANTS these fukin regimes so as to be convenient with teir world policies. THA you seem totally unawre of, and rather harp on superficially about how evel the 'other' is

no ---it is a connection. it isn't black versus white and vice verse, but an OVERALL amalgamam of deliberately mainpulated oppression, which USES these scenarios whic have been exploited for POWER, where the ordinary perns become caught in the crossfire. also the ordinary persons, many of them naive cease to question in a deep way what is going on beneath the propaganda

Like I am going to listen to someone who can't even spell half the words of her post.

no. what i mean is maybe 98% of the world is good no matter where theyre from, what color or religion. It's just a handfull who want to f everything up. If you hate based on people being differant thats exactly what "they" want.

i am not apoligizing for anyone's actions, personally i hate war and killing and repression of any kind. Who pays for all this? innocent people (usually poor) just trying to survive.

I will tell you your views on America are not based on fact. I look at the beaches of Europe full of American blood, yet they kept coming off those boats walking over thousands of dead bodies. WHY to stop a madman who brainwashed people and wanted nothing mare than to destroy and turn the Earth into a living hell.

But what is an American? Where i live in the U.S EVERY single ethnic group is present and no matter what you may have heard oppertunity is available to us all...of cource you gotta bust your ass for everything but nothing comes easy.

User with 10 posts saying Neo Con takeover is false. Muslims are scumbags, Saddam tyrant madman blah blah blah.

How convenient.

Those Neo Cons got guys everywhere covering up their tracks and confusing the issues.

first of all, i never said Muslims are scumbags (you did). Having been in a Mosque once and being treated with respect by everyone there i would NEVER say that. And i doubt all my Muslim friends would say that about me.

I was referring to the people responsible for killing 3,000 innocent people. Has nothing to do with religion at all though.

BUt that is the basis of conspiracy just ignores facts. And NO ONE has ever accused me of being a NeoCon he he he whatever the hell that is.

NeoCon as opposed to Conservative? NeoCon is that like NeoNazi? god some are so easily led. Propoganda goes both ways.

first of all, i never said Muslims are scumbags (you did). Having been in a Mosque once and being treated with respect by everyone there i would NEVER say that. And i doubt all my Muslim friends would say that about me.

I was referring to the people responsible for killing 3,000 innocent people. Has nothing to do with religion at all though.

BUt that is the basis of conspiracy just ignores facts. And NO ONE has ever accused me of being a NeoCon he he he whatever the hell that is.

NeoCon as opposed to Conservative? NeoCon is that like NeoNazi? god some are so easily led. Propoganda goes both ways.

Alejandro, we need more members like you on this forum. You speak crystal clear truth.

Like I am going to listen to someone who can't even spell half the words of her post.
like i give a fuk if u listen or not?

That's another point of the story that doesn't hold up. You ever try to make a cell phone call from a moving airplane? :cool:

Yes. It works.

Geoff

like i give a fuk if u listen or not?

I hope not. You're not my type. :D

Seriously though, if you want people to listen try using a wordprocessor with spell check. Then try to keep to on thought per paragraph please. I am sure that you have some views that could be very interesting and enlightening, but until you can ake it more readable we are never going to know.

Conspiracy theory is a fun hobby, but we watch too any movies and TV shows to make us any good at it. Everything is alwys complicated in the entertainent world. nothing is what it seems. Soetimes in the real world it is as simple as 2+2=4.

I hope not. You're not my type. :D

Seriously though, if you want people to listen try using a wordprocessor with spell check. Then try to keep to on thought per paragraph please. I am sure that you have some views that could be very interesting and enlightening, but until you can ake it more readable we are never going to know.

Conspiracy theory is a fun hobby, but we watch too any movies and TV shows to make mus any good at it. Everything is alwys complicated in the entertainent world. nothing is what it seems. Soetimes in the real world it is as simple as 2+2=4.

well you cerTAINLY aint my type you patronizing bore....and blind. 2plus two equals 4 yeah. but not fo yo

Geez, try to be nice and get insulted. Ah well, at least you listened, somewhat.

Alejandro, we need more members like you on this forum. You speak crystal clear truth.

thanks. reading some of these posts is like Rush Limbaugh in reverse.

Whenever I read or see some conspiracy theories, I always do a bit of thinking, then ask myself "How many people would it take to pull it off?" and "How could so many people be convinced to never, ever tell the secret?"
I do not take issue with you for raising this very pertinent question. And yet, looking back much further that 2001, it does seem remarkable how many people have been involved in conspiracies of silence.

For me, living in Cheltenham, home of GCHQ, one very clear example of a conspiracy of silence comes very naturally to mind. Some three thousand people in this town are engaged in the capture and interpretation of signals intelligence -- and they are sworn to secrecy about their work. I cannot tell you what knowledge resides within the walls of the "Doughnut". But this I can tell you: when Bletchley Park was the centre of SIGINT operations, an even greater number of people were employed. And yet the very existence of the Bletchley Park operation (where the Enigma secrets were unravelled) remained a secret for decades after WWII. All the histories of WWII written in the immediate postwar years, and on through the fifties and sixties, were written in ignorance of the knowledge that the German codes had been broken. (Just a handful of historians were in on the secret, permitted to let it inform their opinions, but not allowed to divulge it in their writing.)

Looking back even further, we know that the entire US press agreed to keep it secret that FDR was a cripple. The British press long kept secret from the British public the relationship between the Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII) and the American divorcee he was later to marry. Again, it is now widely accepted that the supposed "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" that provoked the Vietnam War was fabricated by the CIA. How many US navy personnel knew or guessed the truth from the start but kept stum? And yet these examples pale into insignificance by comparison with the deceits carried out by less scrupulous governments!

In short: I rate as pretty high the ability of governments and other organisations to hush things up or keep a lid on them. That ability is greater than one might reasonably expect. However, with regard to conspiracy theories, in my opinion, insofar as they are based on selective eye-witness testimonies, they are based on bugger all!

Again, it is now widely accepted that the supposed "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" that provoked the Vietnam War was fabricated by the CIA.

I suppose I live on the fringes of society :rolleyes: because apparently that conspiracy's acceptancy wasn't wide enough to reach where I am. I've never met a sane person who in all seriousness told me what you just told me. You might as well have just said:

I'm an uninformed psuedoconspiracy theorist.

But other than that, good call.

Again, it is now widely accepted that the supposed "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" that provoked the Vietnam War was fabricated by the CIA. How many US navy personnel knew or guessed the truth from the start but kept stum? And yet these examples pale into insignificance by comparison with the deceits carried out by less scrupulous governments!


I thought they had actually come out and said this was a setup? One of the people involved admitted to it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

Later statements

In 1995, retired Vietnamese General Nguyen Giap meeting with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, categorically denied that Vietnamese gunboats had attacked American destroyers 1964 August 4. A taped conversation was released in 2001 of a meeting several weeks after passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, revealing that Robert McNamara expressed doubts to President Johnson that the attack had even occurred.

In October, 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the United States National Security Agency, concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted intelligence reports regarding the August 4 incident. He concluded that the motive was not political but was probably to cover up honest intelligence errors.

Mr. Hanyok's conclusions were initially published within the NSA in the Winter 2000/Spring 2001 Edition of Cryptologic Quarterly, about five years before being revealed in the New York Times article. According to intelligence officials, the view of government historians that the report should become public was rebuffed by policymakers concerned that comparisons might be made to intelligence used to justify the Iraq war that commenced in 2003.

Reviewing the NSA's archives, Mr. Hanyok concluded that the NSA had initially (probably innocently) misinterpreted North Vietnamese intercepts so as to make it appear there was an attack on August 4. Midlevel NSA officials almost immediately discovered the error, he concluded, but covered it up by altering documents, so as to make it appear the second attack had happened. Robert McNamara, who was defense secretary at the time of the incident, said in October, 2005 that he believed intelligence reports regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident were decisive to the war's expansion.

On November 30, 2005, the NSA released the first installment of previously classified information regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident, including Mr. Hanyok's article, "Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2-4 August 1964" Cryptologic Quarterly, Winter 2000/Spring 2001 Edition, Vol. 19, No. 4 / Vol. 20, No. 1.

The Hanyok article states that intelligence information was presented to the Johnson administration "in such a manner as to preclude responsible decisionmakers in the Johnson administration from having the complete and objective narrative of events of 4 August 1964." Instead, "only information that supported the claim that the communists had attacked the two destroyers was given to Johnson administration officials."

- N

You think Amis will show up and admit he was wrong?

Naw. No one on this board has the testicles to own up to a mistake.

You think Amis will show up and admit he was wrong?

Naw. No one on this board has the testicles to own up to a mistake.

Least of all you. You refuse to admit, despite overwhelming evidence against it, that your "happeh theory" is false.

what overwhelming evidence?

what overwhelming evidence?

How about the fact that everyone masturbates, yet noone shows symptoms of your happeh theory? And what about there being no evidence to prove your happeh theory? I'd call that overwhelming evidence. Then again, your opinion of what is evidence and what isn't seems to be rather differed from mainstream science, but that's because you are a crackpot. Your so called "evidence" is photos of people leaning on tables.

How about the fact that everyone masturbates, yet noone shows symptoms of your happeh theory? And what about there being no evidence to prove your happeh theory? I'd call that overwhelming evidence. Then again, your opinion of what is evidence and what isn't seems to be rather differed from mainstream science, but that's because you are a crackpot. Your so called "evidence" is photos of people leaning on tables.

You don't know anything.

What an excellent counter-argument Happeh, absolutely commendable.

the wankin thread is over there

the wankin thread is over there
ROFL good one duendy

but CH is right, happeh has been busted
but refuses to admit it
instead he calls people liars, cheats, haters
and says nobody knows what they are talking about except him

As far as the plane in Pa. wasnt their a phone call from a passenger stating they were about to take over the plane or something like that.

Yes. It was Todd Beamer. He spoke to his wife, said goodbye, then said, "Let's Roll " to his fellow passengers. President Bush even quoted Mr. Beamer as the closing line of one of his speeches after the attacks. Hell, Neil Young even wrote a song about it. There were also phone calls from other passengers, some guy named Mark something.

If this is all fabricated, it's a pretty good job. I first heard the story on the BBC news the night of the attack way before any mention was made in the US media. I was up all nite that day checking various reports.

The US can't even keep its phone taps or "secret prisons" secret, you think it could cover this up!

What an excellent counter-argument Happeh, absolutely commendable.

Anything greater would be a waste of energy on you.

The US can't even keep its phone taps or "secret prisons" secret, you think it could cover this up!

The key to keeping secrets isn't keeping them, but making sure people don't believe them in the first place.

- N

"Well-publicised yes, but well documented? How is it that the WTC attacks were caught on numerous cameras but the Pentagon attack was not?"

Wow 700 Japanese tourists.

Here is the fun thing about your theories: You think to yourself- "700 tourists! They must be taking pictures and have out their video cameras! Since we have no pictures from them, it must be a conspiracy! A vast coverup!"

Now if you had ever been on a Military Installation you would know that you are not allowed to be taking pictures/movies of the installation unless you have written permission. Now since im in the Military I know this. But since you are not, you do not know of this policy. Obviously NY does not have this restriction. Open your mind people.

Anything greater would be a waste of energy on you.

Oh the irony. Many posters have spent their energy on showing you established facts and research countering your absurd "Happeh Theory", yet you dismiss everything they say as "high school nonsense", or similar.

You think Amis will show up and admit he was wrong?

I stand corrected. Not by Happeh, mind you. I admit that I, a freshman in high school, made a semi-uniformed statement about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Now that I know otherwise and have admitted I was wrong, will someone please explain the "Happeh Theory" to me?

I stand corrected. Not by Happeh, mind you. I admit that I, a freshman in high school, made a semi-uniformed statement about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Now that I know otherwise and have admitted I was wrong, will someone please explain the "Happeh Theory" to me?

Now go talk about this with your teacher and start a huge debate. :)

- N

Yes. It was Todd Beamer. He spoke to his wife, said goodbye, then said, "Let's Roll " to his fellow passengers. President Bush even quoted Mr. Beamer as the closing line of one of his speeches after the attacks. Hell, Neil Young even wrote a song about it. There were also phone calls from other passengers, some guy named Mark something.

If this is all fabricated, it's a pretty good job. I first heard the story on the BBC news the night of the attack way before any mention was made in the US media. I was up all nite that day checking various reports.

The US can't even keep its phone taps or "secret prisons" secret, you think it could cover this up!


iT WASN'T HIS WIFE HE SPOKE TO... IT WAS A VERIZON OPERATOR....

TO ALL YOU HOLIER THAN THOU GEORGE BUSH IS GOD PEOPLE...

WATCH THE VIDEO THEN COME BACK AND LETS TALK. :D

AND AGAIN, TRY MAKING A CELL PHONE CALL AT 33,000 FEET...YOUR OWN PERSONAL CELL PHONE - NOT THE SAT PHONE ON THE PLANE.

iT WASN'T HIS WIFE HE SPOKE TO... IT WAS A VERIZON OPERATOR....

TO ALL YOU HOLIER THAN THOU GEORGE BUSH IS GOD PEOPLE...

WATCH THE VIDEO THEN COME BACK AND LETS TALK... UNTIL THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP! :D

AND AGAIN, TRY MAKING A CELL PHONE CALL AT 33,000 FEET...YOUR OWN PERSONAL CELL PHONE - NOT THE SAT PHONE ON THE PLANE.

Hey, tone it down a little, OK?

And an ordinary cellphone will work fine at that altitude. Actually, much better than on the ground when the nearest tower is 6 1/4 miles away.

the speed of the plane wont let you make a phone call,the towers wont connect fast enough.

thats why they wont let anyone use a phone on the plane,it would fuck up their lies.

the speed of the plane wont let you make a phone call,the towers wont connect fast enough.

thats why they wont let anyone use a phone on the plane,it would fuck up their lies.
Bull!

Go back to sleep, kid.

LOL

Mars, get help

"Was 9-11 a government conspiracy?"

No.

But the aftermath has been, and whatever you've read or heard in the mainstream media about it is almost entirely false.

For instance-

No organization named "Al Qaeda" exists; Usama's group in Afghanistan was called the MAK; The Mujahadeen. The name "al qaida" was dreamed up by US Intelligence; it was only the name of the BASE where the MAK were headquartered in Afghanistan while fighting the Russians.

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya... oddly, because they had nothing to do with bases of operations in Afghanistan -or- in Sudan, where he fled after being stripped of his Saudi citizenship in 1995.

Usama bin Laden is NOT wanted by Federal Authorities for the Sept. 11 attacks. Check the FBI's own website for proof.

Google "PENTTBOM" (EDIT: the FBI has (/snicker) recently changed their website (within the past 3 or 4 months) sanitizing it of any reference to the 9-11 attacks and BOMBING)

If you've never heard of that, it's because you weren't meant to. It is the name given to the "wild goosechase" conducted by the FBI for ANY names on which to pin the 9-11 "hijackings"

Six (possibly seven) of the alleged 19 Hijackers (20, if crazily count Zacharias Moussaoui) are still alive.

PENTTBOM stands for- "Pentagon / Twin Towers BOMBING"

The real "architect" of the 9-11 attacks is Ramzi Yousef, who has been in custody and behind bars in the US since he was convicted of conspiracy in 1996 for the "Bojzenka" plot. He was also the cell leader in the first WTC bombing in 1993.

The real "mastermind" of the 9-11 attacks is thought to be Ramzi Yousef's uncle- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, but he is NOT wealthy or influential enough to have masterminded such an attack; he certainly could NOT have had Cheney handicapping our air defenses that morning across the entire North Eastern quadrant by running drills called "Vigilant Warrior" and "Vigilant Guardian" (et al).

General Ahmed Mahmoud (sp?) of Pakistan's ISI, one week before the attacks, ordered an aid to wire one Mohammed Atta $100,000.00 in the US (Florida, iirc). (Sources abound, google them- I'm not recalling this for the edification of the counter-conspiracy-theory-theorists)

The ISI General left office within days of the 9-11 attacks.

Pakistan was up to its eyeballs in financing the 9-11 attacks; not a peep from US domestic news; just a footnote in the 9-11 Whitewash Commission about it.

Condaleeza Rice was lying when she testified before the Kean Commission that the government had no idea planes could be used as weapons of terror. Lucky for her, she was never sworn in.

The president supposedly "testified"- to just three members of the Kean 9/11 Commission behind closed doors, and off the record also; all notes (if any were taken) were classified or destroyed after the cabal, I mean, closed-door pResidential testimony.

...

So when you ask whether or not 9-11 was a government conspiracy, no it wasn't- however the coverup of what really happened; obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, the American People, and the International Community; the distribution of intentional disinformation and fixed intelligence; and two needless wars which are about to bankrupt the US later; and the quid pro quo "annexation" of the Atty General and the Judiciary (Supreme Court)- those are government conspiracies.

And- there's no "theory" about any of it.


...

Besides, remember what Napoleon Boneparte once wrote- "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

...

Ofcourse, the following is an opinion (I'm paraphrasing attorney Stanley Hilton who had tried to represent 400+ families of the 9-11 victims in a suit against the White House but who was refused mere discovery power!), but in light of what is now known about Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, and nefarious projects such as Northwoods- it may ring true:

That "if the government simply allowed 9-11 to happen (through negligence), then they made it happen"



I happen to disagree, but, there it is.



All that without even touching "bombs in the buildings" or "remote electronic hijacking"...


Greetings

And an ordinary cellphone will work fine at that altitude. Actually, much better than on the ground when the nearest tower is 6 1/4 miles away.

I work in the wireless industry and have looked into the claims of the phone calls from the passengers of the hijacked planes; some of them might be genuine, others might not be.

In 2001, my company was only beginning to ramp up production of 3G wireless, and most of what was deployed around the NE United States at that time was TDMA; CDMA was only a few years old and dual wattage (0.6W~3W) phones were fairly uncommon.

The "tripping" of switching equipment in the MTSO's wasn't likely a problem; the Bells have had high speed solid state switching since the 1970's, so that's a myth.

However, AMPS service in 2001, or even 2G TDMA service without a booster amplifier, inside a plane at 30,000 feet isn't likely; not for extended periods of time. "Airfones" then had boosted signals which operated at about 850 (some 895) MHz, and iirc, were using plain old FM or stepped FM for modulation.

The "9-11 passenger phone calls" afaics are still something of a mystery; not necessarily "a conspiracy" but mysterious.

...

The cockpit FDR's and CVR's still being held and classified pisses me off; that's got to be illegal.

...

Similarly, the OKC footage confiscated by the FBI which McVeigh's defense team found but were barred access to during discovery litigation.

Ask me about that stuff some time; and judicial misconduct during the OKC Grand Jury.

greetings

I stand corrected. Not by Happeh, mind you. I admit that I, a freshman in high school, made a semi-uniformed statement about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Now that I know otherwise and have admitted I was wrong, will someone please explain the "Happeh Theory" to me?

Happeh theory basically states that "Masturbation will make you go blind!", adn cause heart problems, and make you lean your head towards you masturbating hand. Complete and utter unproven bullshit of course

the speed of the plane wont let you make a phone call,the towers wont connect fast enough.

thats why they wont let anyone use a phone on the plane,it would fuck up their lies.

Let's do some maths. Passenger plane flies at say, 800Kmh. Base stations are 10Km apart. 800Kmh is 13km per minute. So it takes about 45 seconds to cross a signal midpoint. 45 seconds? Cellphones can't connect to a base station in 45 seconds? Who's your service with, Cingular ;-) ? Don't facts, rather spoil conspiracy theories ;-) ?

The cockpit FDR's and CVR's still being held and classified pisses me off; that's got to be illegal.
So far as I was able to follow the news, from here in the UK, early on it was given out that none of the four black boxes from Ground Zero had been found. In another forum, I was roundly condemned as a conspiracy nut for arguing that I found this very unlikely.

Later, the official line seemed to be neither to deny nor confirm the survival of the boxes -- but I am unaware of any fresh news in the last couple of years. Has there been any admission that the black boxes are in FBI (or CIA, FEMA, NIST, NTSB) keeping? I would welcome a link to any reliable information on this subject.

Oh the irony. Many posters have spent their energy on showing you established facts and research countering your absurd "Happeh Theory", yet you dismiss everything they say as "high school nonsense", or similar.

I dismiss everything they say as purposeful lies meant to make you and your family stupid and easy to control.

Or I dismiss everything they say as incompetence.

Your statement is false.

Happeh theory basically states that "Masturbation will make you go blind!", adn cause heart problems, and make you lean your head towards you masturbating hand. Complete and utter unproven bullshit of course

Will you stop spreading falsehoods about me?

I can prove what I say easily to any person with an open mind. Any person interested in facts, not a power play or a submission/dominance game.

Will you stop spreading falsehoods about me?

you did say masturbation will make you blind
you did say masturbation will make you weak
you did say masturbation is the leading cause of death due to aids
you did say masturbation will make one of your arms shorter

stop your fucking crying happeh
face it, your a loser

he just ignore intelligent inquiries into his lies\fantasies (like Brain Fooley does). his goal is to poison young minds that read this but he hasnt realized he has the IQ of a handball.

he just ignore intelligent inquiries into his lies\fantasies (like Brain Fooley does). his goal is to poison young minds that read this but he hasnt realized he has the IQ of a handball.
Hey - be reasonable. You're giving handballs a bad name; they are much smarter than him!

I can prove what I say easily to any person with an open mind. Any person interested in pictures of people leaning their heads such as myself must be a crackpot, especially when I ignore people who disagree with me.

Fixed for accuracy.

And an ordinary cellphone will work fine at that altitude. Actually, much better than on the ground when the nearest tower is 6 1/4 miles away.

Project Achilles Report (http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm)

Cell phones traveling in airliners can get a service signal at heights up to some 6,000 ft, but it is not possible to make a connection, at least not while traveling at the usual cruising speed of a normal airliner (500-550 mph). Since in all cases (if at all) connections could only be established well after the pilots have pulled out the landing gear at some 2,000 ft and at a cruising speed of 230 mph or less, it seems safe to conclude that in summer of 2003, no connection could be made with a cell phone from an airliner flying in the U.S. when above an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) and when traveling with a speed over 230 mph. Considering the fast descent of the planes and the fact that they kept slowing down as they approached the runway, the height at which a connection could be established might actually be as low as 1,500 ft (457.5 m), and the speed around 200 mph.

The reason why a connection could only be established at some 1,500 ft above ground despite the fact that a signal was present already at some 6,000 ft may be that the speed of the traveling aircraft was too high at higher altitudes. It seems safe to say that the speed must be under 230 mph in order to establish a stable connection, a speed which an airliner can reach only during landing, with landing gear, air brakes and flaps all the way out.

It is generally agreed upon that all the airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001, flew at a high cruising speed of 500 mph and more until they crashed. Thus, it seems safe to say that no cell phone of any type could have established any stable connection to any cell site at that speed, no matter which height the planes flew at. This is particularly true for United Airlines flight 93, which did not only fly at high speed but also at a relatively high altitude during the time when the alleged cell phone calls were placed.

______________________________

and to be fair, I have no personel knowledge of this.

Unlikely in the extreme, dkb. Roaming service is quite quick. I've used cell phones on a variety of flights just prior to landing. Furthermore the complaint appears to be that the planes were travelling too quickly (again, roaming service); height seems to have "disappeared off the radar" in the article.

Geoff

iT WASN'T HIS WIFE HE SPOKE TO... IT WAS A VERIZON OPERATOR....

TO ALL YOU HOLIER THAN THOU GEORGE BUSH IS GOD PEOPLE...

WATCH THE VIDEO THEN COME BACK AND LETS TALK. :D

AND AGAIN, TRY MAKING A CELL PHONE CALL AT 33,000 FEET...YOUR OWN PERSONAL CELL PHONE - NOT THE SAT PHONE ON THE PLANE.

But the calls were from much lower altitude than 33000 feet.

Why the anger?

Geoff

Fixed for accuracy.

Just keep spreading the lies Hamster. Everyone else does.

If you ever get the urge to ask a real question, I will be happy to reply. Since you seem not to know how to phrase an intelligent question, I recommend reading the post by mercaptan in the thread in question. He models proper scientific thought and behavior quit admirably.

Just keep spreading the lies Hamster. Everyone else does.

Especially you.

You stated in your masturbation thread you will not respond to demands when asked a perfectly reasonable question that would disprove your theory. Hmm, odd that.

lol Oh, the Happeh Theory is actually supposed to be a real theory? I thought you guys were joking! So Happeh, in theory, should look like this: http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e37/AmishRakeFight/Happeh.jpg (I'm sorry, you have to save the picture to view it full size. For some reason this picture won't get any bigger.)

Especially you.

You stated in your masturbation thread you will not respond to demands when asked a perfectly reasonable question that would disprove your theory. Hmm, odd that.

More lies huh?

I said I would not respond to demands from abusive, dictatorial people whose only interest are playing submission/dominance games.

If you are honest, try me. Ask a question in a polite and courteous manner. Or even just a plain old friendly and curious manner. You might be surprised at the result.

lol Oh, the Happeh Theory is actually supposed to be a real theory? I thought you guys were joking! So Happeh, in theory, should look like this: http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e37/AmishRakeFight/Happeh.jpg (I'm sorry, you have to save the picture to view it full size. For some reason this picture won't get any bigger.)

Shouldn't you be telling us how you know for a fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was real?

Oh. That's right. It was proved that you are a blowhard who talks with no idea of what he is saying.

If you are honest, try me. Ask a question in a polite and courteous manner. Or even just a plain old friendly and curious manner. You might be surprised at the result.
liar. i know for a fact that snakelord repeatedly asked you to provide a link to your claims.
you have yet to provide anything verifiable

Shouldn't you be telling us how you know for a fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was real?

Oh. That's right. It was proved that you are a blowhard who talks with no idea of what he is saying.

Your absolutely correct. I made a mistake about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. This is old news. And if you'll check the thread, I never remember saying "for a fact" anywhere. In fact, I actually said "I have never met a person who told me what you just told me." Which is obviously true, as my statement about the incident was incorrect. Therefore, you lose again.

Honestly Happeh, I don't enjoy debating you into the ground, but as far as I can tell, your Happeh Theory is unsubstantiated and thoroughly lacking in evidence. I am going to ask you a honest, polite, courteous, friendly, AND curious question: Please explain to me your Happeh Theory and show me the evidence, experiments, and surveys that back it up.

I am going to ask you a honest, polite, courteous, friendly, AND curious question: Please explain to me your Happeh Theory and show me the evidence, experiments, and surveys that back it up.
HOLY SHIT YOUR A HATER

(end sarcasm)

you are wasting your time amish. we have, for the last month, tried to coax something from him to no avail.

you are wasting your time amish. we have, for the last month, tried to coax something from him to no avail.
I have to agree with leopold here , this happeh is a 1st prize asswhole , after reading his first 2 threads I didnt bother engaging the idiot in any form of debate . You are wasting time , his mind is locked tighter than a steel drum meaning debate with this fruitcake is impossible .

I digress. Happeh, best of luck to you convincing the masses that the next evolutionary stage will entail a crooked-headed, heart-malfunctioning, blind existence.

AmishRakeFight

dkb218:

You have chosen not to receive private messages, so here is a public message for you.

An offensive post from you in this thread has been deleted. It was inappropriate on several levels:

1. Personally insulting.
2. Obscene.
3. Anti-semitic.

Since this is a first offence, this is a friendly warning. Next time, you will receive a temporary ban from sciforums.

Honestly Happeh, I don't enjoy debating you into the ground, but as far as I can tell, your Happeh Theory is unsubstantiated

This is true.


and thoroughly lacking in evidence.

This is false.


I am going to ask you a honest, polite, courteous, friendly, AND curious question: Please explain to me your Happeh Theory and show me the evidence, experiments, and surveys that back it up.

No experiments necessary. No surveys necessary. What will you accept as evidence? I use photos to demonstrate that people are crooked, not straight according to the design specifications of the body.

People seem to believe that pictures of other people that show they are crooked means nothing in terms of the health of the person. I don't understand it myself, but that is what they believe.

Let me know what you will accept as proof and I will be happy to give it to you if I can.

I have to agree with leopold here , this happeh is a 1st prize asswhole

I don't understand you. You have no allies here. I offered advice to you to stop the cussing. I feel that you would have more impact with your arguments.

Now for some reason, you are making posts like this to me. I think this is the second or third one. It makes no sense. I do not post to you or in your threads. I do not know what your problem is.


, after reading his first 2 threads I didnt bother engaging the idiot in any form of debate . You are wasting time , his mind is locked tighter than a steel drum meaning debate with this fruitcake is impossible .

Do you have a mental problem? Drinking? Anger? Stress? That kind of attitude of yours is not normal. I have barely spoken to you and you are saying things like this about me.

I digress. Happeh, best of luck to you convincing the masses that the next evolutionary stage will entail a crooked-headed, heart-malfunctioning, blind existence.

AmishRakeFight

Huh? Does this mean you are no longer interested in an explanation?

Now for some reason, you are making posts like this to me. I think this is the second or third one. It makes no sense.
Thats because you made 2 unprovoked attacks on me , you enjoined into a debate I was having with others and made an unprovoked attack about my posting , so I am just doing the same to you .
Sharon sent to hospital with brain trouble (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51251)
The personal comments you make are so out of line you destroy any chance at all of anyone listening to you.

I read one of those crazy comments you make and I wanted to run away as fast as I could.

Your attitude makes me think you post on Yahoo or something. You have to post in that style to survive in an environment like that.

These forums are not Yahoo. That yelling, insulting style does not fit here. I think it might actually drive people away.
And Here again
CNN caught Lying and thrown out of Iran (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=957131#post957131)
No wonder you were banned before.

You give people with legitimate criticism of Israel and Israeli World Domination a bad name.

No, Happeh, I'm here. I just got back from having a life. For some reason I've made some enemies by stepping on toes, so I'm here to clear this up between you and me. I have no bias against you, but the things I've heard and your logic process hasn't impressed me. The things I will accept as evidence of your Happeh Theory is simple: anything that will prove to me that your Happeh theory has a chance of being possible. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt on this one; that's how much I don't think that the Happeh theory is true.

Best of luck to you
AmishRakeFight

P.S. I consider Brian Foley an intelligent member and "ally", whether he remotely feels the same or not (as if there are factions among us :rolleyes: ) . His views differ from mine, but he still displays the facts and argues intelligently with proper logic.

P.S. I consider Brian Foley an intelligent member and "ally", whether he remotely feels the same or not (as if there are factions among us :rolleyes: ) . His views differ from mine, but he still displays the facts and argues intelligently with proper logic.
I feel the same about you Amish I enjoy your debates we cant agree on everything but that is what makes it enjoyable . And I will buy you a glass of ice cold http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/384909/2/istockphoto_384909_cold_beer.jpg
I got deep pockets when I shout ;)

AND AGAIN, TRY MAKING A CELL PHONE CALL AT 33,000 FEET...YOUR OWN PERSONAL CELL PHONE - NOT THE SAT PHONE ON THE PLANE.

The AirPhone system that uses conventional cellphone technology broadcasts with less power than a regular cellphone, because altitude and line of sight to cellphone masts mean longer contacts can be made from planes, than in urban environments.

I've made 8Km contacts with a 0.5w radio, thanks to altitude, and clear line of sight.

So, I don't see why it wouldn't work, if the flight is over land, where you could pick up a signal on the ground normally.

Please refer to my earlier reply to Mars13 about the time available to contact a base station too. 45 seconds. Easy. Broadcasting 10km. Easy. What's the technical issue?

The AirPhone system that uses conventional cellphone technology broadcasts with less power than a regular cellphone, because altitude and line of sight to cellphone masts mean longer contacts can be made from planes, than in urban environments.

I've made 8Km contacts with a 0.5w radio, thanks to altitude, and clear line of sight.

So, I don't see why it wouldn't work, if the flight is over land, where you could pick up a signal on the ground normally.

Please refer to my earlier reply to Mars13 about the time available to contact a base station too. 45 seconds. Easy. Broadcasting 10km. Easy. What's the technical issue?

Have you ever been on a plane? More specifically a commercial plane? Maybe my cell phone is defective ( :rolleyes: ), but it does not work in the middle of a flight.

Have you ever been on a plane? More specifically a commercial plane? Maybe my cell phone is defective ( :rolleyes: ), but it does not work in the middle of a flight.

Have I ever been on a plane. Yes, on many occasions.

I've seen people make/take calls on commercial planes in flight.

So maybe, you were just flying over an area with no coverage, hmmm?

dkb218:

You have chosen not to receive private messages, so here is a public message for you.

An offensive post from you in this thread has been deleted. It was inappropriate on several levels:

1. Personally insulting.
2. Obscene.
3. Anti-semitic.

Since this is a first offence, this is a friendly warning. Next time, you will receive a temporary ban from sciforums.

Well forgive me. I'll tame my temper. If I insulted anyone, I truly apologize.

Know, please tell me where I was anti-semtic?

The term "Jew dick sucking bitch" is anti-Semitic, dkb218.

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://www.issues-answers.com/forum/index.php?topic=220.0

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200410%5 CNAT20041011a.html

The term "Jew dick sucking bitch" is anti-Semitic, dkb218.
didn't i say something similar and got banned for it?

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-672210.html

Some facts that don't add up...

1. WTC is the only place in the world where burning aviation fuel has been able to melt that type of steel. The maximum temperature of burning aviation fuel is well below the melting point.
2. The superstructure of the WTC woiuld act as a giant heat sink, draining the heat away, keeping the temperature from rising much.
3. The movement of the collpase has been suggested by a structural engineer to have more closely resembled a controled internal explosion. A failure should have caused it to keel over sideways.
4. John Ashcroft refused to get on a plane after June 2001.
5. FEMA arrived to help with the disaster THE NIGHT BEFORE.
6. After collapse, only five people got out alive DESPITE the fact that the restaurants around the subway station were virtually untouched.
7. An important meeting for one of the BUSH family, due to take place at the WTC was suddenly changed to night before to a nearby building.
8. Helicopters volunteering hellp remove people fromthe top were refused, that including emergency services.
9. The event and response has bveen shown to have a remarkable ring of numerology about it, as if someone had geared the whole thing to comply with it.
10. The wing of the Pentagon hit just happened to be undergoing redecoratio and had been entirely empty for a few days. What a coincidence!
11. Fergie, the pain-in-the-butt wayward ex-wife of Prince Andrew, who has constantly embarrassed the British ROyal family had a charity meeting due to start about 10 minutes before the first palen struck. Fortunately, true to her lazy personality, she arrived the best part of half an hour late so is just whisked away.
12. ONe senior executive in one of the huge broking firms got a strange call from a man insisting he was a customer and telling he had to meet him personally IMMEDIATELY in the lobby of the WTC. The plane struck as he was coming down in the elevator, so h left. He was one of only two to survive from that firm. The man has never been traced.
13. How come the anniversary of the WTC lottery numbers were supposed to 9 and 11? Bit coincidental wasn't it?

Wow! What a wild bunch of silly speculation! Here's betting you cannot provide any reliable sources for any of it.

I'll take an easy one, just for starters. No one with any sense has ever claimed the steel melted . It was weakened, primarily because the fireproofing had been knocked off by the impact.

And both towers most definitely DID tilt somewhat before they finally collapsed.

Some facts that don't add up...

8. Helicopters volunteering hellp remove people fromthe top were refused, that including emergency services.

the reason for this was because the doors leading to the roof had been locked
well before 9/11

Counter conspiracy theory theorists are so much kookier than who or what they attempt to explain away; that anyone would actually spend time to refute "4,000 Jews don't show up for work on 9/11" as (evidence for) a "conspiracy theory" sadly lends such idiotic notions (re: NOT "theories" at ALL) a sort of indirect credibility they didn't have before the "refutation."

It amounts to "raising the noise floor"- nothing more.

There are problems with the "official story" as outlined in the Kean Commission report, but that is not an endorsement of any "conspiracy theory."

...

Anyone who believes no further investigation is needed is just plain nuts.

Or a PNAC cheerleader...

Or both.

Some facts that don't add up...
6. After collapse, only five people got out alive DESPITE the fact that the restaurants around the subway station were virtually untouched.

i doubt the validity of this.
the buildings surrounding wtc 1 and 2 were damaged
some extensively
wtc 7 collapsed and it wasn't even hit

Anyone who believes no further investigation is needed is just plain nuts.

why do you say this?

why do you say this?

Why do you question it?

...

Someone who knew Ramzi Yousef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef) probably got the idea for the 9/11 attacks from him before he was jailed for the "Bojinka" conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka) in 1996-7; his Uncle (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed)) wasn't wealthy enough or influential enough to have pulled off the attacks, and, Usama bin Laden (http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terbinladen.htm) is NOT wanted in connection with the 9/11 attacks... the only suspect (yet) charged is Zacarias Moussaoui (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm).

The DOJ link lays out a nice little case against Moussaoui personally, but much of what it contains is sheer speculation and invention.

Up to and including the nifty intelligence moniker: "al Qaeda."

...


Do your absolute best to find a streaming or downloadable version of Adam Curtis' three-part documentary "The Power of Nightmares (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm)."

It pretty much lays out the agendas which have polarized the West and the Wahabbiists.

I have not had time research reliable sources to
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LERPresentation.htm
you do realize the plane that crashed into the tower was a 767
don't you?

- Melting point of construction steel is 1535 degrees C, aviation fuel burns at 825 degrees C

steel starts to lose its strenght before it melts

edit
Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

Steel melts at about 1300 degrees Celsius (2400 Fahrenheit).
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99021.htm

Ebeltoft said steel loses half its strength when heated to temperatures of 700 to 1,000 degrees.
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/17/01_9_m.html

For anyone reading through this thread:

There has been alot of misinformation put out about "pancake" collapses, and I want to clear the air about this issue and the WTC, or at least put the term in a historical context.

The WTC twin towers were not classic "pancake" collapses; "pancaking" is not even a valid failure mode because the principles which would lead one or more floors to cause an entire building to collapse mean that the building design (or materials) would be totally unsafe under typical loads, especially with regard to hydrocarbon fires.

For the bureaucrats at FEMA, the moniker "pancake collapse" was convenient, but all wrong for the twin towers (as it is for WTC 7 also). (Don't get me going about budget increases and NIST, or FEMA for that matter; each agency has some good apples and some rotten ones)

The term "pancake" was first used in the 1950's by the Army Corps of Engineers who were designing reinforced concrete buildings to withstand earthquakes and nuclear strikes. They noticed that typical concrete buildings when hit with sufficient seismic vibration were susceptible to collapse into a heap of floors, so the END RESULT looked like a stack of pancakes; all the floors neatly stacked one upon the other below it.

We saw no such symmetry of debris at ground zero of the WTC complex.

So, it wasn't a pancake collapse; no out-rigger type building could be, according to what I learned in the mid-1980's while studying architecture, since they were designed with internal stabilizers to resist vibration on four axes, including torsional or rotational forces.

...

Besides, the final nail in the coffin of the popularized "pancake theory" is the near free-fall durations of each of the three buildings; regardless of what "conspiracy theorists" use those facts to indicate... it doesn't mean there were bombs in the buildings (though some explosions were heard, felt, reported, and captured on audiovisual media they weren't "regular" enough to be a sequential controlled demolition), but what it does mean is that the collapse wasn't a sequential floor-by-floor event either, which has been popularized with certain media outlets, and counter-conspiracy websites.

The structural mass and forces which were resisting downward compression (and absorbing momentum during the collapses), by sharing the load between the core and the exterior panels, means that the towers should have only partially collapsed.

(There is some contention with the misleading moniker "Progressive Collapse" also, which was welcomed by the Neo-Cons' "echo chamber" and even mainstream media- but semantics are another discussion; there's a precedent for "pancake collapses" and the WTC wasn't one, however the term "progressive collapse" entered the lexicon fairly recently)

...

An uncomfortable summary is this:

Between the "bombs in the building" theories and the "lucky collapse theories" there's really no middle ground.

And no means of harmonizing both extremes.

The science behind the TT collapses (and WTC 7) has polarized the 9/11 debate ever since, and it will likely continue; hopefully resulting in a theory which satisfies all of the data we have, and whatever we will learn in the future.

The WTC collapses are still a mystery right now.

One of MANY surrounding the 9/11 attacks...

And the curious events afterwards.

...

I don't read much from the so-called conspiracy theorists, or their detractors, so you'll have to forgive me if any of this was covered by anyone else. Most of what I know about the TT and WTC 7 comes from FEMA and NIST's information and my own training and reasoning.


Greetings

you people whomconstantly deny conspiracy theory about 9/11 7/7 etc., cant you see the absurdity of your position?
you seem to have no grasp how the bully boys a the top work. their motives of power-over. you seem soooo naive and trusting in authority. easily manipulated. your freedoms are going cause of those sham 'terrorist' attacks and u dont seem to care....?

I second that Duendy, but what can one do?

:m:

you people whomconstantly deny conspiracy theory about 9/11 7/7 etc., cant you see the absurdity of your position?
you seem to have no grasp how the bully boys a the top work. their motives of power-over. you seem soooo naive and trusting in authority. easily manipulated. your freedoms are going cause of those sham 'terrorist' attacks and u dont seem to care....?
And isn't it odd how Duendy trusts no one yet will believe anything that could be classed as "bad."

It's too early for ad hominem, isn't it?

It's too early for ad hominem, isn't it?
That wasn't intended at all. What WAS intended, as someone once said, "Facts is facts!" ;)

Remember, she says the whole world is controlled by this shadowy, secret group that must keep it's presence hidden, yet is constantly revealing it's self through numerology. Without coming even close to recognizing it, she contradicts herself at almost every turn. :D

Well, okay... I didn't mean to call you a name caller... that'd make me a hypocrite, or worse! ;)

I share her level of frustration, though I place the blame of 9/11 on the actual perps and their financeers, not the gallery of incompetent spooks and politicians.

Cheers

I second that Duendy, but what can one do?

:m:
as an INDIVIDUAL begin trusting your own understanding. ANYclues, hints, follow them through. do NOT conform to authority......Easier said than done i know, but the alternativeis just being part of the totally utterly ignroeant self-destruct behaviour being shown by authoritarian power structures and its following sheep

professor liht doesn't understand. well, get the fukin flags out he doesn't understand how on one level we can have a shadow/secret cabal running things and yet have blatanyt hints of their existence all ofer '9/11' etc.
well, checkout how people like him research. His mindset will just leave it there. these pople which belong to the -usually-materialistic right wing mindset, tho of course you have the leftwing fraternitiy too. they seem to have a filter. they dont wont harbour ANY doubt but live in a weird kind of 'safe-zone'. Not oe would look deeper into what they just cast off a 'conspiracy theory'. in a way their mindset intrigues me. how they DO it. it's beyond me

but anyhow, what it meN IS THIS: YES. THEY are BLATANT. rthey KNOW, areplaying wth--like the power weilding psychos they are--the fact hat a certan amount of people will be aware, but the bigger the lie the lss it will be believed.
Do these poo pooists here eer bother to research what tyrants have said. what some of the Nazi SS said and someof the major players in the conspiracy say, in their speecehes, books?bet any money they dont. for example, the power weilders reveal how easy it is to manipulate 'the people'. they knowthe trricks. do you honestly think they are naive about how to manipulate people?

i ask each one of you tp look at the occult symbolism surrunding '9/11' and make yer own minds up. if you can refute it do it
but remember it all adds up. hat adds up with te many 'mundane' clues that 9/11 was an inside job!!!!.....Ad ask yourself tis. WHo did that atrocity benefit? the people? or the power-over controllers?

think about the absurdity of the superpower US being intimidated by a group of 'rag heads' operating from 'secret caves'. if it wasn't soo fukin serious it'd be a black comedy

as an INDIVIDUAL begin trusting your own understanding. ANYclues, hints, follow them through. do NOT conform to authority......Easier said than done i know, but the alternativeis just being part of the totally utterly ignroeant self-destruct behaviour being shown by authoritarian power structures and its following sheep

professor liht doesn't understand. well, get the fukin flags out he doesn't understand how on one level we can have a shadow/secret cabal running things and yet have blatanyt hints of their existence all ofer '9/11' etc.
well, checkout how people like him research. His mindset will just leave it there. these pople which belong to the -usually-materialistic right wing mindset, tho of course you have the leftwing fraternitiy too. they seem to have a filter. they dont wont harbour ANY doubt but live in a weird kind of 'safe-zone'. Not oe would look deeper into what they just cast off a 'conspiracy theory'. in a way their mindset intrigues me. how they DO it. it's beyond me

but anyhow, what it meN IS THIS: YES. THEY are BLATANT. rthey KNOW, areplaying wth--like the power weilding psychos they are--the fact hat a certan amount of people will be aware, but the bigger the lie the lss it will be believed.
Do these poo pooists here eer bother to research what tyrants have said. what some of the Nazi SS said and someof the major players in the conspiracy say, in their speecehes, books?bet any money they dont. for example, the power weilders reveal how easy it is to manipulate 'the people'. they knowthe trricks. do you honestly think they are naive about how to manipulate people?

i ask each one of you tp look at the occult symbolism surrunding '9/11' and make yer own minds up. if you can refute it do it
but remember it all adds up. hat adds up with te many 'mundane' clues that 9/11 was an inside job!!!!.....Ad ask yourself tis. WHo did that atrocity benefit? the people? or the power-over controllers?

think about the absurdity of the superpower US being intimidated by a group of 'rag heads' operating from 'secret caves'. if it wasn't soo fukin serious it'd be a black comedy
Yeah, right, Duendy!

If anyone even says "blow up" (though they are talking about a balloon) to you it would mean they are going to destroy Big Ben so that no one in London can tell what time it is. Therefore thousands would be trampled as people rushed madly in both directions since they could not tell if the were supposed to be going to work or going home.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it? Yet that's exactly how your drug-diminished mind works. You fear every moving shadow. Trust no one. Everyone is the enemy or one of "their" agents.

Do you check under your bed each night (three or four times) before going to sleep? I would imagine so.

You see patterns alright, and so does every deluded individual. Quick! Look! The pieces of your oatmeal are forming a picture in your bowl! Someone is sending you a message!!!!

@duendy

Just a suggestion... if you really have something solid, hound independent media. Forget mainstream media; it's deader than a doornail.

By chance, I've chatted with two (so-called) "9/11 researchers" in the past who both expressed frustration that even "Indy Media" won't interview them, the more well-known one is Michael Ruppert (author of "Crossing the Rubicon") who spoke with some lament that outlets like democracynow.org won't touch anything related to "9/11 truth"... which seemed odd to me, since Amy Goodman has interviewed author Peter Lance (whose work is also fully sourced and compelling) and theologian/author David Ray Griffin.

Good luck to you

...

@quelquechosedautre

I apologize, but I really missed your point (about the man who didn't show up for work)

Again, I'm sorry, but there can't be "bombs in the building" AND "no bombs in the buildings"... I agree that other possibilities exist; even "probabilities" (such as that the Twin Towers were "miraculous lucky collapses" but that WTC 7 was "pulled" strategically)- but speculation just isn't very useful to anyone.

I thought about the "self-destruct button" demolition theory some time ago, but such a modification to the buildings would never have been permitted by building code. Not in a public building anywhere.

SAM "counter-measures" at the Pentagon, however...

The Jews did not turn up for work is either entirely wrong or maybe just one Jew did not...that's about it.

Well, still... it's a good example of a waste of the US taxpayers' money to take bald assertions and racist propaganda like that seriously.

Our federal government's own dis/info site actually uses that silly story to mischaracterize "9/11 research" altogether.

Cheers

The WTC twin towers were not classic "pancake" collapses; "pancaking" is not even a valid failure mode because the principles which would lead one or more floors to cause an entire building to collapse mean that the building design (or materials) would be totally unsafe under typical loads, especially with regard to hydrocarbon fires.

if you are familiar with the construction of the wtc 1 and 2
you would come to the conclusion that pancakeing is valid

each floor of the wtc 1,2 was secured at the outter wall
at the core columns the floors were held up by what i would call "keys"

the keys were only tack welded because the weight of the floor held them in place

as the heat weakened the initial floor it pulled away from the columns
the weight of the sagging floor pulled it from the outter wall

since each floor was about an acre in size and was covered with concrete
it is not inconceivable that the floors would pancake

Well, okay... I didn't mean to call you a name caller... that'd make me a hypocrite, or worse! ;)

I share her level of frustration, though I place the blame of 9/11 on the actual perps and their financeers, not the gallery of incompetent spooks and politicians.

Cheers
i haven't read the entire thread so forgive the querstion

who do you beleive perpetrated and financed 9/11

My girlfriend was a traineer chef and has a $300 chef knife. If we can't find the can opener, it'll cut through steel like butter.
what kind of horseshit is this?

1. If there had been explosives housed there in local offices of, the CIA or some cretin of a builders office...would he have told anyone.
2. The explosives could have been bought in deliberately knowing the place was going to get hit. If it was a conspiracy, they might have detonated the explosives to make sure the witnesses died thereafter. If that's so, it would throw dobt on the activities of the doctors sent in with the rescue workers and whether they were there not to save surviviors but to finish them off with a hypodermic full of, say cyanide.
3. In a controlled explosion, it would have been the security forces that would have brought it in after impact, during the confusion.
Oh, brother! What a crack-pot!!

If the current mess of conspiracy theories isn't enough garbage, start inventing some new ones of your own! :bugeye:

Some facts that don't add up...

1. WTC is the only place in the world where burning aviation fuel has been able to melt that type of steel. The maximum temperature of burning aviation fuel is well below the melting point.
2. The superstructure of the WTC woiuld act as a giant heat sink, draining the heat away, keeping the temperature from rising much.
3. The movement of the collpase has been suggested by a structural engineer to have more closely resembled a controled internal explosion. A failure should have caused it to keel over sideways.
4. John Ashcroft refused to get on a plane after June 2001.
5. FEMA arrived to help with the disaster THE NIGHT BEFORE.
6. After collapse, only five people got out alive DESPITE the fact that the restaurants around the subway station were virtually untouched.
7. An important meeting for one of the BUSH family, due to take place at the WTC was suddenly changed to night before to a nearby building.
8. Helicopters volunteering hellp remove people fromthe top were refused, that including emergency services.
9. The event and response has bveen shown to have a remarkable ring of numerology about it, as if someone had geared the whole thing to comply with it.
10. The wing of the Pentagon hit just happened to be undergoing redecoratio and had been entirely empty for a few days. What a coincidence!
11. Fergie, the pain-in-the-butt wayward ex-wife of Prince Andrew, who has constantly embarrassed the British ROyal family had a charity meeting due to start about 10 minutes before the first palen struck. Fortunately, true to her lazy personality, she arrived the best part of half an hour late so is just whisked away.
12. ONe senior executive in one of the huge broking firms got a strange call from a man insisting he was a customer and telling he had to meet him personally IMMEDIATELY in the lobby of the WTC. The plane struck as he was coming down in the elevator, so h left. He was one of only two to survive from that firm. The man has never been traced.
13. How come the anniversary of the WTC lottery numbers were supposed to 9 and 11? Bit coincidental wasn't it?

1: Ever seen a paper fire? Almost every business and office in the WTC building kept extensive hard copies. not to mention all the plastic, carpeting, wood, and other combustable materials present. It would have been all to easy to get a fire of 1525+
2: For a normal amount of heat generated by the suns rays striking the building. Burning fuel igniting everything else would easily over come that.
3: It did keel a little, but not much in the grand scheme of this. I suppose the same structural engineer told you it is possible for a building to fall like that.
4: That could have been for any number of reasons, including colds, sinus infections, or even temporary fear of flying.
5: Wasn't FEMA scheduled to have a conference that day? arriving the night before seem logical in that case.
6: You know I heard more than 5, but then I was actually listening.
7: Coincedence if true at all
8: You do not land heleicoptors on a burning buildings.
9: How hard do you have to look for most of it.
10: Lucky for my second cousin.
11: Thank God, I actually like Fergie, she's a normal person, rare among royals.
12: So? It could be exactly as it is described.
13: ooooh spooky

How does keeping a closed mind honour all those who died?
And how does having a mind so open that your brains fall out honor them?

How does keeping a closed mind honour all those who died?
nobody is dishonoring the dead

you never explained what chef knife cuts through steel like butter

concerning 9/11
there is more at work here than anybody realizes

i have reason to beleive the events of 9/11
was in fact carried out by terrorists

but the real question i have is why?
why did 9/11 happen?

the answer i beleive lies at the heart of our national security.

To open a can of soup you just stab it in the top and hack through it like butter.
i have opened cans of soup with cheap ass wal mart specials

a soup can lid is no comparison to the hardened steel shackle of a padlock

The Popular Mechanic article linked above effectively covers most of the commonly referenced theories, but not all.

There have been reports that a number of the hijackers are currently alive and well back home in the ME. The wheel hub left over at the Pentagon does not match the design (missing triangular gaskets around oval cut-outs, inaccurate diameter/width ratio) documents for the type of plane said to have hit the building. Dog-security controls were removed from the WTC a few days before 9/11, while at the same time, security systems for multiple floors were shut down, and network upgraders had comparatively free access to the building for a number of days.

Any explanation for those? The obvious answers:
1) not all hijackers were involved in the actual hijacking, but in the planning and background execution of the attacks.

That is *not*, however, what is being presented to the public. They are labeled as "hijackers", not – “co-conspirators”.

2) the gaskets may have all broken off, there may have a been a wheel from another plane in the cargo hold, during maintenance, the standard wheel described in the design manuals may have been replaced by another design.

It could also be that poor reporting and inadequate fact-checking have resulted in the dissemination of false information. In most areas, this has been the *exact* truth behind the rumors.

3) dogs: bad timing?

4)the reality of the business world is that while we have security in place, if it becomes too difficult or costly, people often just ignore it to get thier job done.
I see this *every* day at work; I'm in NYC now, and having left my ID at home by accident, the "high security" mearly asked me "what floor are you going to?", and had me sign in. No ID checks, no calls upstairs to verify that I wasn't just making sh*t up.


Part of why these conspiracy theories have gained so much traction is the government’s inaccuracy in other areas. By holding fast to ideas which have been shown false or inaccurate in some areas, the level of trust in everything that is said is reduced.

The government has shot itself in the foot here; if they want the people to believe in the official story for 9/11, then they need to be clear/concise, and honest about *all* areas of public discussion.
If nothing else, THIS is where the current government has failed RE: 9/11.

Your determination to throw around childish abuse shows your laughable inability to perform reasoned argument.
Not at all. Your determination to present half-baked unreasoned arguments show you to be very gullible, to say the least.

You present off-the-wall theories as if they were facts. You ignore the reasonable explanations in favor of overly complex fantasies.

Now... exactly who is it that has an "inability" here??????

If Bush has allowed himself to be identified as following numerology AND Bin Laden has identified it, we will be in for trouble this year as he will target events to discredit Bush and scare the US public into believing a bunch of croney old prophecies. Bad dates abound, the very worse (that I can identify) being...
1st May - Beltaine and anniversary of the last day of the Knights Templars Power
6th June (The obvious one)...Try writing it down in full in numerals
2nd and 3rd of August - 9th of av, and anniversary of the founding of Jersusalem.
My guess is that with world events deteriorating around Iran as they are, we'll see nukes used by the end of the year, possibly on one of these dates.
You are absolutely full of it!

Tell you what - I'm a betting man and I just love taking other people's money. Especially fool's money - it's like taking candy from a baby.

So here's the deal. We'll select someone here on the forums that we agree upon to hold the cash and each send them US $10,000. At the end of the year the money goes to the winner. OK?

By the way, are you old enough to enter into a legal contract?

who do you believe perpetrated and financed 9/11

I have no beliefs, per se; only my assessments of the available evidence, and criticism for those who are witholding further evidence improperly (that which should be eligible for FOIA disclosure).

The 19 perps named by the FBI in the PENTTBOM documents don't all wash, and Moussaoui's role in 9/11 is doubtful (prosecutors had