Conspiracy 9/11

[footy68]

BBC 2 now. This will really get you thinking.

[Matt]

My skepticism rears its head again...

 

>>>> LINK <<<<

[Ackey]

I actually thought it was a really good documentary actually.

 

Usually with conspiracy shows, no matter how much you want to believe them, you get the feeling that they are just nutters. and I admit there were a couple on there, but the BBC gave it a nice balance, and whilst the facts support the fact that there was no involvement from the CIA/FBI/NSA they also don't rule it out.

 

Some theories (like the fact that the Govt actually blew up the twin towers) seem complete rubbish, but then others (like where the Flip did that plane go that hit the Pentagon!?) are interesting and deserve further study.

 

Basic fact though, is that it'll never be proven one way or the other - becuase historically the other theories have never gone away but never been proven either.

 

All i do know is that trusting the American Government is both neive and stupid, because they are as corrupt as corruptable is!

[footy68]

I hope thetramdriver can confirm this, but the image they had with the object hitting the Pentagon could not have been a jet liner. As they said the size was different, but jet propelled aircraft would have nosed into the ground/engines would have been ripped off and left behind as debris. It is a real difficult one, the Pentagon, but whilst I don't think there are any doubts about why the Twin Towers came down, the other building (world trade 7?) is questionable.

[Matt]

9/11 conspiracy theorists like to reference pictures of the damaged Pentagon in which the hole made by the plane appears to be small, but aren't as fond of the pictures accurately showing the full extent of the damage. Some conspiracy theorists also don't seem satisfied that the shape of the hole matches that expected for a crashed airplane. But the expectation that the plane should have left an immediately recognizable hole in the building is delusional - a speeding Boeing 757 will not leave a snow-angel style impression of itself in a concrete building (versus the mostly-glass exterior of the WTC buildings, which did leave an outline of a plane). And the contention that no remains of Flight 77 were found at the crash site is simply absurd. Many pictures taken of the area around the Pentagon crash site clearly show parts of an airplane in the wreckage. Conspiracy hheories usually fold under the own weight, this one did a long time ago...

[footy68]

But the angle at the Pentagon was that it was a much smaller aircraft.

[Matt]

But the angle at the Pentagon was that it was a much smaller aircraft.

 

There's an excellent article about 9/11 conspiracy theories in a US rag Popular Mechanics, blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer describes his own observations as the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed:

 

I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.

 

Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds:

 

"I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

 

Conpiracy theorists/programmes like the one last night will cherry pick information. They pick and choose the evidence to push their own agendas.

[Matt]

WTC7

 

Emergency response workers at Ground Zero realized that extensive damage to the lower south section of WTC 7 would cause collapse as early as 3 pm on 9/11, a fact reported on news broadcasts at the time.Video footage shows that when collapse occurred, the south wall of the building gave in first, which is exactly what we would expect based on the location of the most extensive damage. As noted for the collapse of the South Tower, the mechanics of the building's fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained. The planned demolition hypothesis, on the other hand, fails to explain why collapse would begin at exactly the point where damage was inflicted, since the conspirators would have had to been able to predict exactly where debris from the fallen North and South Towers would strike WTC 7.

[inspectormorose]

There's an excellent article about 9/11 conspiracy theories in a US rag Popular Mechanics, blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer describes his own observations as the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed:

 

I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.

 

Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds:

 

"I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

 

Conpiracy theorists/programmes like the one last night will cherry pick information. They pick and choose the evidence to push their own agendas.

 

Always struck me as bizarre the conspiracy theory about the Pentagon,the people on that plane died they had grieving relatives,families,kids.They were interviewed,on tv,talking about their loss.If they weren't really grieving relatives but actors it wouldn't stand up for very long.

 

Bit of a no brainer.

[Matt]

Always struck me as bizarre the conspiracy theory about the Pentagon,the people on that plane died they had grieving relatives,families,kids.They were interviewed,on tv,talking about their loss.If they weren't really grieving relatives but actors it wouldn't stand up for very long.

 

Bit of a no brainer.

 

Exactly. Conspiracies implode with the amount of angles that have to be covered - substituting science and evidence with conspiracy doesn't work...

[Stevie_J]

Isn't there also a conspiracy that the US forces shot down United Flight 93? Sure I heard that somewhere, a good while ago.

[Matt]

Isn't there also a conspiracy that the US forces shot down United Flight 93? Sure I heard that somewhere, a good while ago.

This is pretty good...

 

FLIGHT 93 & OTHER ALLEGED ANOMALIES

 

On April 5, 2006, the creators of the 9/11 conspiracy documentary

"Loose Change" and their supporters decided to attend the premiere

of the film "United 93," about the hijacked airplane that crashed on

9/11. They wanted to take the opportunity to expose the alleged lies

about this flight, and in the words of one "Loose Change" forum

member, to "bite these bastards where it hurts, and have this Fight

93 movie backfire on them."(28) To many Americans, the passengers on

United 93 who fought back against the terrorists and caused it to

crash before it could reach its target are heroes, but the 9/11

Truth Movement sees things differently. Depending on which

conspiracy theorist you ask, you will either learn that Flight 93

actually landed safely, or that a US military jet shot the plane out

of the sky.(29) The first claim stems from confusion in the initial

Associated Press (AP) reports between Flight 93 and Flight 1989, the

latter of which did land at Cleveland's Hopkins Airport on 9/11. The

AP subsequently corrected the error, but many conspiracy theorists

have not followed suit.(30) The second claim rests largely on

unsupported assertions that the main body of the engine and other

large parts of the plane turned up miles from the main wreckage site

-- too far away to have resulted from an ordinary crash. This is

incorrect, because the engine was found only 300 yards from the main

crash site, and its location was consistent with the direction in

which the plane had been traveling.(31) Furthermore, the black box for

the flight records the struggle onboard preceding the plane's crash.

Conspiracy theorists are left with not only an evidentially

worthless theory, but also a confusing one. Why would the same U.S.

government that allegedly destroyed the WTC shoot down Flight 93

before it could cause similar damage to other buildings? Of course,

this question assumes a standard of logical consistency that the

9/11 Truth Movement seems to lack.

 

Another alleged flight anomaly concerns the supposed "stand down"

order given by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)

on 9/11 to allow the hijacked airplanes to reach their destinations

without interference. The 9/11 Truth Movement believes that NORAD

had the capability of locating and intercepting planes on 9/11, and

its failure to do so indicates a government conspiracy to allow the

attacks to occur. To support this assertion, they claim that NORAD

could have quickly neutralized the hijacked planes because flight

interceptions are routine, with 67 such intercepts occurring before

9/11.(32) Significantly, this claim does not specify the length of

time over which these alleged intercepts occurred, or tell us

whether they took place near major cities or over, say, miles of

open ocean. More specific and accurate information comes from the

Popular Mechanics article, which states:

 

In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one

civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's

Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew

unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio

contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed.

Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the

stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11,

prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts.(33)

 

It is not a quick or easy matter to locate and intercept a plane

behaving erratically. NORAD personnel must first attempt repeated

communication with the planes in question to rule out more mundane

problems, and then must contact appropriate military personnel to

scramble the planes and direct them to the appropriate location. The

situation on 9/11 was further complicated by the fact that

terrorists on the hijacked jets had turned off or disabled the

onboard radar transponders. Without a transponder signal identifying

the airplanes, each hijacked airplane would have been only one

moving blip among many others on NORAD'S screens, making it much

harder to track. Thus, even a direct NORAD decision to intercept any

of the hijacked planes on 9/11 would have still entailed a

significant amount of time to reach the jet -- time that was simply

not available on 9/11.

[Stevie_J]

I did hear that then, thanks Rummy. This one seems altogether more believable to me, than the other 9/11 conspiracy theories. I wouldn't put it past the American government to cover up having shot down a plane full of citizens by painting those people as heroes, winning out over the terrorists.

[Matt]

I did hear that then, thanks Rummy. This one seems altogether more believable to me, than the other 9/11 conspiracy theories. I wouldn't put it past the American government to cover up having shot down a plane full of citizens by painting those people as heroes, winning out over the terrorists.

 

It didn't get shot down though Steve. The blackbox recorder managed to get the struggle recorded.

[Stevie_J]

It didn't get shot down though Steve. The blackbox recorder managed to get the struggle recorded.

Officially. I'm not saying it happened, just that I wouldn't be too surprised if it did.

[Beardy]

I blame Michael Moore!

[Matt]

Good debate lads, I've enjoyed this!

[Ackey]

I think the one thing that makes it believable more than any physical proof - for me - is that I honestly think GW Bush would think nothing of collateral damage of 2,000+ people.

 

He is a callous man, no better or worse than most, but backed by some truly evil people.

 

That is certainly not evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, but for me is important when considering the events of 9/11, and for that matter, the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, his election, the suppression of public opinion and generally his frighteningly low ethical barrier!

 

IMO, obviously, he certainly attempted to cover up the lack of US response to the event and the questionable actions of people in power!

[leeslover]

I think the one thing that makes it believable more than any physical proof - for me - is that I honestly think GW Bush would think nothing of collateral damage of 2,000+ people.

 

He is a callous man, no better or worse than most, but backed by some truly evil people.

 

That is certainly not evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, but for me is important when considering the events of 9/11, and for that matter, the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, his election, the suppression of public opinion and generally his frighteningly low ethical barrier!

 

IMO, obviously, he certainly attempted to cover up the lack of US response to the event and the questionable actions of people in power!

 

 

If they could carry it off then I'm sure there would be politicians who would attempt that sort of thing but it would be such a long shot to carry it off with such consequences that I just don't believe it. They do lots of smaller things all the time though. I'm 100% convinced that security updates and counter-terror news from HM Gov are timed to help them push through new measures that they want.

[Ackey]

Along those lines, did you know that Mr President now has the legal right to personally interpret the Geneva convention!?

 

Basically giving the USA the right to torture people however it chooses!

 

Not to mention legal wire taps based on no evidence, media suppression, media control, unlimited imprisonment without charge (let alone trial or conviction!) the list goes on!

 

The USA is basically a police state and the sad thing is 99% of the population either don't know or don't care!

[Matt]

I think the one thing that makes it believable more than any physical proof - for me - is that I honestly think GW Bush would think nothing of collateral damage of 2,000+ people.

 

He is a callous man, no better or worse than most, but backed by some truly evil people.

 

That is certainly not evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, but for me is important when considering the events of 9/11, and for that matter, the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, his election, the suppression of public opinion and generally his frighteningly low ethical barrier!

 

IMO, obviously, he certainly attempted to cover up the lack of US response to the event and the questionable actions of people in power!

We've got to weigh up the evidence. No backward islamic fundementalists could pull this off could they? Of course they could! They didn't need help from the west, we were incompetent enough to let them do it. I agree with this.

 

There's a quote from Ghostbusters that's kind apt believe it or not:

Dr Ray Stantz: "Symmetrical book stacking. Just like the Philadelphia mass turbulence of 1947"

Dr. Peter Venkman: "You're right, no human being would stack books like this."

 

Terrorists can hit us, they don't need help - and that's what we'd like to forget - but don't forget these:

 

- an attack by the radical Hezbollah faction on Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983;

 

- the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985;

 

- a truck bomb attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; killing 6 people and injuring over 1,000 more;

 

- a thwarted attempt to blow up 12 planes heading from the Philippines to the U.S. in January, 1995;

 

- an attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and injuring hundreds more;

 

- the bombings of U.S. Embassy buildings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1995, killing 12 Americans and 200 Kenyans and Tanzanians;

 

- a thwarted attempt by Ahmed Ressam to attack Los Angeles international airport in late 1999;

 

- a suicide boat bombing against the U.S.S. Cole on October 12, 2000, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others.

 

And others I don't have reference for...

[Ackey]

I totally agree Rummy, that there is a legitimate threat out in the world.

 

HOWEVER!

 

I question the ethical, moral, political and economical actions the US makes.

 

Ethically and Morally, it can not operate a moral high ground over these terrorists - it too has commited attrocities and killings which are totally out of line with the 'world police' tag it is given.

 

Politically we can see already that the rats are abandoning the sinking ship.

Of its political donations between '94 and '02 NewsCorp (FOX, BskyB, the Sun etc) donated consistently in the favour of the Republican party (average 69%).

In both 2004 and 2006 that swung to a 67% avarage to favour the Democrats!!!

 

Economically the USA has already spent $300bn on the Iraq war, 4.06% Of GDP!!

In context, the Viet Nam war cost $584 (in 'todays' money) over a 16 year period!

[Matt]

Okay, so where were we...

[leeslover]

Okay, so where were we...

 

Weyhey, back to geopolitics... Is it only me who thinks that if we should really be asking why there has been so little terrorist action if there are tens of thousands of trained activists, backed with billions of pounds, with this supposed global network, and crucially with people willing to die in the course of their mission? I'll make it clear that I know there are lots of bad people out there who wish wstern democracies ill, but they are, well, rubbish. Thankfully even more rubbish than the blokes trying to stop them.

 

As an example, imagine if the IRA, with their comparatively meagre resources and manpower, and rarely up for dying, had set out to kill as many people as possible? There would have been many hundreds killed several times a year, and that's just in the UK. This new threat is hyped up out of all proportion, and it's obvious who'd doing it. Still needs watching like, but not in SE Afghanistan.

[Matt]

I think the one thing that makes it believable more than any physical proof - for me - is that I honestly think GW Bush would think nothing of collateral damage of 2,000+ people

 

I bring a bit of skepticism to the debate, as you probably laready know! I'm a conspiracy theorists nightmare! LOL!

 

First up I've quoted you there Ackey - what this tells me is that no matter what scientific proof or evidence is provided, you are going to dismiss it for a personal belief.

 

Secondly, you've given me a load of stats. This is called cum hoc ergo propter hoc or the correlation of statistics does not imply the causation logical fallacy. These stats do not even suggest a US Government conspiracy to kill 2000+ people. There is no correlation - and no evidence.

 

Thirdly Occam's Razor states that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." in this case Islamic loons flying planes into building to cause chaos.