9/11 Conspiracy?

[zeusbheld]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

Hi Lee, You have misunderstood my meaning, what im saying is that i Believe the US govt are to blame for the 911 atrocity not Bin Laden or Iraq. Thats what i beleive.

By 'to blame' are you meaning they actually carried out the attacks themselves or that their actions as a nation lead terrorists to undertake the attacks? If it's the former then you're a moron. If it's the later then I can see where you may have a point as America's attitude and behaviour worldwide hasn't endeared themselves to many countries/people. However, regardless of their culpability the actions of the terrorists should never be tolerated or defended.

this. it's plausible enough that the attacks were blowback from US foreign policy (in particular, training and financing the mujahedeen, then abandoning them when the russians gave up on afghanistan). but the notion that it was a 'secret plot by the US government' is more than a little silly, and not supported by any substantial evidence.

 

[zeusbheld]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

Matty says he says it how he sees it! which no doubt he will go on at me. it refers to my thing of if you watch mainstream media you will believe that. And never question it.

I remember seeing the planes hit the towers, pretty sure that wasn't a special effect created by CNN's graphics department.

a friend of mine (lived on King street in manhattan, look at a map) saw the first plane fly directly over his roof. another friend lived in battery park city (directly across the street from the former WTC, you don't even need a map) saw the second plane.

contrary to the opinion of many conspiracy nuts, they were indeed airliners in both cases, and not "cruise missiles."

and no, i don't even watch the "mainstream media," cbeebies etc., but i don't frequent websites put together by sweaty, irrational conspiracy dorks either.

 

[zeusbheld]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

Lets just say, for arguments sake, they could prove that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, or atleast not the commercial plane. Why do they need to answer where the commercial plane, and passengers, went?

if it wasn't a commercial plane, how do you explain the fact that bits of commercial plane were found all over the crash site, according to the investigators who were actually there? or are they part of the conspiracy too? it gets to be a lot of people who have to keep quiet when you think like that.

 

[ElanJo]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

Where did all the rubble go?


Been told it got shipped out to China without examination.

is this a precursor to the usual bullshit about how steel doesn't melt at the temperature at which aviation fuel burns? tell you what, i spent an entire semester studying the tempering of steel. you know what? the steel doesn't have to melt. it gets soft.

I'm gonna play devils advocate here and say in that case what was the molten pools of 'stuff' at the bottom of each of the 3 collapsed towers?

If I remember their claim correctly, and I do not know if their claim was debunked because I havent continued to look at 911 theories due to not being impressed enough with them, they look to visual evidence of the clean up, accounts of the pools by the clean up crew and the aerial heat signature of the 3 sites.

 

[Uwe Rosler's Grandad]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

Lets just say, for arguments sake, they could prove that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, or atleast not the commercial plane. Why do they need to answer where the commercial plane, and passengers, went?

if it wasn't a commercial plane, how do you explain the fact that bits of commercial plane were found all over the crash site, according to the investigators who were actually there? or are they part of the conspiracy too? it gets to be a lot of people who have to keep quiet when you think like that.

If there was a cover up, then that is what you would expect them to say wouldn't you? I still can't work out in my mind how an engine not from a Boeing 757 could find it's way into the Pentagon crash site though.

 

[cbeebies is poo]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

Matty says he says it how he sees it! which no doubt he will go on at me. it refers to my thing of if you watch mainstream media you will believe that. And never question it.

I remember seeing the planes hit the towers, pretty sure that wasn't a special effect created by CNN's graphics department.

a friend of mine (lived on King street in manhattan, look at a map) saw the first plane fly directly over his roof. another friend lived in battery park city (directly across the street from the former WTC, you don't even need a map) saw the second plane.

contrary to the opinion of many conspiracy nuts, they were indeed airliners in both cases, and not "cruise missiles."

and no, i don't even watch the "mainstream media," cbeebies etc., but i don't frequent websites put together by sweaty, irrational conspiracy dorks either.

irrational conspiracy dorks either

thats funny so all these are dorks in your view. they have a right to research and find out what they believe and put this on the web. If its not on the web you wouldnt get much chance to see this as for are own media would not put this on.

in question to the plane goin into the Twin Towers i dont no who said they didnt but i dont disagree with you there imo they did. Loss of lives as i stated before do you honestly think these people who are behind this are bothered about a few 100 or 1000 loss of lives.? they need this so that they get your vote to create wars.

 

[ElanJo]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

Lets just say, for arguments sake, they could prove that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, or atleast not the commercial plane. Why do they need to answer where the commercial plane, and passengers, went?

if it wasn't a commercial plane, how do you explain the fact that bits of commercial plane were found all over the crash site, according to the investigators who were actually there? or are they part of the conspiracy too? it gets to be a lot of people who have to keep quiet when you think like that.

Please look at the context in which I was replying.

 

[zeusbheld]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

how about switching to the "landing on the moon" conspiracy where no innocent lives were lost? - imo proves beyond a shadow of doubt that we are fed bullshit by governments and media alike, fucking tin-can lands on the moon and takes off again...pmsl.

Maybe there was a moon landing, maybe there wasn't. I wasn't alive to experience it at the time, and the only coverage is an extremely grainy camera of people bouncing about in spacesuits. It would be possible to fake it, as people couldn't see it happen with their own eyes, and the quality of recording devices was pretty poor. Whether it was faked however I'm not sure, I can see why they would fake it (space race with the USSR, communism etc) and by faking it no-one was hurt. Personally, although I accept the government does lie to the people, and would have no qualms about lying in this instance, I don't think they did. It''s been nearly 40 years since the 'moon landing' and the best conspiracy theorists can come up with is some unconvincing issues surrounding flag movement and shadows.

i just stick personally to the basics that even in 2009 we don't have the correct technology to land a spaceship on the moon and take off again yet 40 years ago when we didn't even have colour tellies or mobile phones we were able to manage it!
tin-can like apollo 11 would have smashed to smitherines if it had of attempted to land on the moon.

there were patents for color television systems as early as 1904. the system used in the US was authorized in 1953.

perhaps you shouldn't base your opinion on your knowledge of technology. just sayin'.
color television prototypes were demonstrated in 1929.

 

[zeusbheld]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

also, the passengers apparently called their familys when they were in the air.

wasnt it proved that they wouldnt have had the signal up there? And they also called themselves by their full name?

proved? by whom? oh dear i hope you're not a lawyer.

by the way, can you prove to me that the calls i shouldn't have made from airplanes, but did anyway, were faked? this should be interesting.

 

[cbeebies is poo]

hope this continues im gettin mi tea then off to the match. By the time i get back you have all voted for your ID cards so they keep tabs on us all?

 

[zeusbheld]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

My big question is. If this is not faked and there really has been a 757 crash...why not release the footage? After all, loads of footage of the twin towers has been released where about 3,000 people died etc...

It's the Pentagon, there's probably some 'official secrets act' or whatever the American version is that means information is held rather than released. Plus, being the Pentagon, the amount of non-government surveilance of the area is likely to be minute so independant coverage isn't likely either. Lets face it though, even if they released footage depicting the crash and aftermath there would be some crackpot conspiracists discounting it and cming up with another ludicrous explanation.

Releasing footage that shows the Boeing 757 going over a motorway or past the petrol station or into the pentagon will get rid of more conspiracies than it would start. And the "Official Secrets Act" is used in cases where the government are trying to protect the public...so what would they be protecting the public against?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.flight77.info/debris.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.flight77.info/debris.php</a>

here are some debris photos. notice how the conspirators deviously planted an airline logo on a piece of debris! man these conspirators are slick.

 

[zeusbheld]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

Surely, they should have released footage of the plane hitting the pentagon then?

Have the goverment released any footage of the planes hitting the two towers or is it all independent footage. I doubt the goverment have released anything really.

Was in New York at Ground Zero in August and there is a guy going round saying there were (i think) 3 planes hitting the towers that day!!!

i was there in manhattan too. there were a lot of guys going around saying a lot of things. including that the con ed plant on 14th street (a few blocks away from me) was going to be bombed, and that risin would be released on the subway.

 

[blueant]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

Conspiracy theories are for crackpots and wierdos. It was terrorism pure and simple. Any other theorising is pointless and, ultimately, extremely offensive to the friends and families of the people killed in these terrorist attacks.

this

 

[Uwe Rosler's Grandad]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

My big question is. If this is not faked and there really has been a 757 crash...why not release the footage? After all, loads of footage of the twin towers has been released where about 3,000 people died etc...

It's the Pentagon, there's probably some 'official secrets act' or whatever the American version is that means information is held rather than released. Plus, being the Pentagon, the amount of non-government surveilance of the area is likely to be minute so independant coverage isn't likely either. Lets face it though, even if they released footage depicting the crash and aftermath there would be some crackpot conspiracists discounting it and cming up with another ludicrous explanation.

Releasing footage that shows the Boeing 757 going over a motorway or past the petrol station or into the pentagon will get rid of more conspiracies than it would start. And the "Official Secrets Act" is used in cases where the government are trying to protect the public...so what would they be protecting the public against?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.flight77.info/debris.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.flight77.info/debris.php</a>

here are some debris photos. notice how the conspirators deviously planted an airline logo on a piece of debris! man these conspirators are slick.

My comment you have used still stands "Releasing footage that shows the Boeing 757 going over a motorway or past the petrol station or into the pentagon will get rid of more conspiracies than it would start."

As for the pics of the plane debris...clearly something has gone into the Pentagon but was it a Boeing 757? And why is there an engine in those pics which hasn't come from one?

 

[zeusbheld]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

Lets just say, for arguments sake, they could prove that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, or atleast not the commercial plane. Why do they need to answer where the commercial plane, and passengers, went?

if it wasn't a commercial plane, how do you explain the fact that bits of commercial plane were found all over the crash site, according to the investigators who were actually there? or are they part of the conspiracy too? it gets to be a lot of people who have to keep quiet when you think like that.

If there was a cover up, then that is what you would expect them to say wouldn't you? I still can't work out in my mind how an engine not from a Boeing 757 could find it's way into the Pentagon crash site though.

where would that image be? i've not heard of any credible evidence such an engine was found. it's always "i've heard that..." or "i saw in a documentary that..."

if there were incontrovertible evidence of such debris, it may sway me, but one would still have to explain all the airliner debris found around the site.

 

[fluffy_blue]

also, the passengers apparently called their familys when they were in the air.

wasnt it proved that they wouldnt have had the signal up there? And they also called themselves by their full name?

proved? by whom? oh dear i hope you're not a lawyer.

by the way, can you prove to me that the calls i shouldn't have made from airplanes, but did anyway, were faked? this should be interesting.

Wasn't it only in the last year or so that the technology that enables the mobile phone calls to be made (while the plane is in the high air) from the planes was starting to be implemented? Something to do with the fact that there are no phone masts up in the sky so they have to use satellites to direct the calls. One of the bigger airlines was advertising it to its business passengers recently and it had caught my eye.
I don't much about this particular technology so if someone who knows more about the mobile phones and planes could comment it would be useful. Or can someone flying soon switch their mobile phone on and see if there is any signal when they are a few miles in the air.

 

[blumoon]

Anybody watch the documentary "Loose Change" ?. Now that really had me thinking that it was a conspiracy. Detonators going off on parts of the twin towers before they collapsed.

 

[zeusbheld]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

Matty says he says it how he sees it! which no doubt he will go on at me. it refers to my thing of if you watch mainstream media you will believe that. And never question it.

I remember seeing the planes hit the towers, pretty sure that wasn't a special effect created by CNN's graphics department.

a friend of mine (lived on King street in manhattan, look at a map) saw the first plane fly directly over his roof. another friend lived in battery park city (directly across the street from the former WTC, you don't even need a map) saw the second plane.

contrary to the opinion of many conspiracy nuts, they were indeed airliners in both cases, and not "cruise missiles."

and no, i don't even watch the "mainstream media," cbeebies etc., but i don't frequent websites put together by sweaty, irrational conspiracy dorks either.

irrational conspiracy dorks either

thats funny so all these are dorks in your view. they have a right to research and find out what they believe and put this on the web. If its not on the web you wouldnt get much chance to see this as for are own media would not put this on.

in question to the plane goin into the Twin Towers i dont no who said they didnt but i dont disagree with you there imo they did. Loss of lives as i stated before do you honestly think these people who are behind this are bothered about a few 100 or 1000 loss of lives.? they need this so that they get your vote to create wars.

so, basically, you're saying *they* have a right to "research and find out what they believe and put it on the web" but *i* don't have a right to think they're irrational conspiracy dorks?

that hardly seems fair.

 

[tueartsboots]

Haven't had time to read all the thread, sorry if this has been linked previously

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html</a>

Some very interesting stuff

 

[Uwe Rosler's Grandad]

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy.

Lets just say, for arguments sake, they could prove that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, or atleast not the commercial plane. Why do they need to answer where the commercial plane, and passengers, went?

if it wasn't a commercial plane, how do you explain the fact that bits of commercial plane were found all over the crash site, according to the investigators who were actually there? or are they part of the conspiracy too? it gets to be a lot of people who have to keep quiet when you think like that.

If there was a cover up, then that is what you would expect them to say wouldn't you? I still can't work out in my mind how an engine not from a Boeing 757 could find it's way into the Pentagon crash site though.

where would that image be? i've not heard of any credible evidence such an engine was found. it's always "i've heard that..." or "i saw in a documentary that..."

if there were incontrovertible evidence of such debris, it may sway me, but one would still have to explain all the airliner debris found around the site.

The link you provided shows an engine. It is not the engine that is normally on a Boeing 757. On one of the conspiracy tapes it had an aircraft/ flight expert explain that it was not an engine from a 757 and then provided photos of the types of engines used...none of which matched the photo that is in your link. Then a picture of an engine that looks exactly the same was provided and it was taken from a missile. I don't buy into the missile theory at all...I'm just wondering why there was such a small hole, why no CC TV evidence has been released showing the plane that hit the Pentagon, why the wrong engine was found in the crash site etc. I think a plane did fly into the Pentagon but I just have a few questions.