911 Truth Movement | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

911 Truth Movement

Do you think the US government should hold an independent investigation into the events surrounding


  • Total voters
    63
Harry said:
it still fell and no jet fuel was involved

for me WTC7 collapse and the smallish hole in the pentagon are massive questions

not to mention the passports found a few blocks away.

Not disputing that H as you would see from my first post on this thread.
 
Disco08 said:
The only two I can think of were the MFY pitcher who flew into an apartment building and the ESB plane crash. Neither building collapsed though.

It was a rhetorical question though anyway, wasn't it? Of course there aren't examples mirroring the 9/11 attacks. There have been plenty of studies on aviation fuel though and the fires they produce. You'd think if a building was desinged to withstand plane crashes they'd have considered that data.

Really? I've seen it claimed that any amount of "conspiracy" evidence was ignored by the official reports. Can you link to something to detail what they investigated snakey?

already been posted by baloo. I find it interesting that you didn't notice they investigated the 'controlled demolition' theory.
 
Disco08 said:
It was a rhetorical question though anyway, wasn't it? Of course there aren't examples mirroring the 9/11 attacks. There have been plenty of studies on aviation fuel though and the fires they produce. You'd think if a building was desinged to withstand plane crashes they'd have considered that data.

You asked for examples of a non controlled demolition with these circumstances and I ask for similar examples that involved aircraft. As neither exist how do you know how the building would respond and collapse?

The building was designed in the 60s wasn't it? A lot has changed since then including the size and amount of fuel carried by the aircraft. There has been numerous reports and even a doco on the intensity of the fire produced by the avgas.
 
didn't most of the avgas burn up or explode on impact when it hit the second tower? It was a far bigger explosion than the first. Funnily enough, there were pictures taken of people standing in the gaping holes the impact made before the towers came down.
 
Disco08 said:
The goal isn't to achieve world domination, it's to keep itself at war becuase that's how the world's richest people can get richer.

Yeah, he does. I also reckon he shows that it's very likely that some people within the US let these attacks happen, not through lack of caring or complacency, but by actively arranging a situation that would allow such a flawed plan to succeed. They knew it was coming (broadly), they had knowledge of an impending attack and most incredibly their best defense was sent away to practice for the type of scenario that was taking place. It's all too fanciful that all these ducks could line up and even then that a bunch of underqualified hijackers could pull off such an intricate but flawed plan with such precision.

I dsagree with him on his last point too. Yes the world is a wierd place and yes strange things happen regularly but no way are the number of inconsitencies related to the 9/11 attacks contributable to that phenomenom. You can't just observe these pieces of circumstantial evidence and write them off as such. At least he accepts them though. :)

I often see things from a slightly different angle, and so it is with Chomsky's statements. I think he was being more abstract in relation to the government's interest in safety from terrorism. I think he was talking about their foreign policy and that it directly increases the likelihood of acts of terrorism against their citizens, but they plough on anyway, rather than active involvement or complicity in allowing a known attack to occur.

When it comes his statements about the conspiracy, I can happily write their position off. They require more knowledge and more data than is available to come to the conclusion that they posit. Is it possible? Sure. Is it probable? I think almost certainly not. Does the evidence support it? In my reading of it, no. Sure the offical report seemed a bit naff. When do official statements not? The official statements on Roswell are full of holes too, but I still don't think we've been visited by aliens.
 
Disco08 said:
Why would they devote the amount of time necessary to collectively come to an agreement about WTC7? They have their own lives to worry about don't they?

Professional curiosity I would imagine. Such a massive event in their field I would be surprised if they didnt spend time to read and discuss the reports amongst themselves. I would if something that major happened in my field.

Silverstein bought the lease (the first time it had ever been sold) one month before 9/11 and profited $7B from the event.

"And I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ya know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is.. is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

So because profited from it he was complicit in blowing it up ? The WTC had already been a target of terrorist attacks so if I bought it I'd make sure it was insured against that sort of event again.

Again, they're making an assertion of fact. Most 9/11 conspiracy theorists are only pointing out that many things about the events make no sense. That aside though, I reckon far more effort is going into the 9/11 TM and it's coming from people who don't have a vested interest or people who are blinded by their faith in a supernatural omnipowerful creator zombie. Are you seeing the folly of offering ID as an analogy yet?

No folly at all. There are things science can't prove, but can make educated guesses when it comes to evolution. The ID brigade are making assumptions as to what really happened and they have experts in their field in their corner. It's not that different if you ask me.
 
Harry said:
it's easier to let sleeping dogs lie and not question the officials and be seen as being unpatriotic.

Only relevant if you are an American professional body.

Harry said:
it still fell and no jet fuel was involved
But it was on fire for quote some time as the water pressure in the area was screwed and they couldn't put the fire out.

not to mention the passports found a few blocks away.

I thought there was only one "magic passport" , not two.
 
Baloo said:
But it was on fire for quote some time as the water pressure in the area was screwed and they couldn't put the fire out.

I thought there was only one "magic passport" , not two.

The vision of WTC7 before it's tidy collapse would suggest that the fire was not raging and out of control.
Nothing compared to these http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm
if the fires were so intense one would expect several top floors to collapse on lower ones, just like the madrid building

been reported that 2 passports were found
 
Harry said:
The vision of WTC7 before it's tidy collapse would suggest that the fire was not raging and out of control.
Nothing compared to these http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm
if the fires were so intense one would expect several top floors to collapse on lower ones, just like the madrid building

been reported that 2 passports were found

The Wikipedia piece I posted earlier in the thread goes into details about the building starting t buckle and the decision to evacuate because they believed is was about to collapse. Have you read that ?

My brief search only talks about 1 magic passport, not two.
 
Baloo said:
The Wikipedia piece I posted earlier in the thread goes into details about the building starting t buckle and the decision to evacuate because they believed is was about to collapse. Have you read that ?

My brief search only talks about 1 magic passport, not two.

yeah read it and heard it - still don't believe the fires caused the collapse

actually reported to be 3 passports -

"The passport of Satam al-Suqami was reportedly recovered "a few blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood";[28][29] a passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the towers collapsed. The passports of two other hijackers, Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al-Ghamdi, were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, and a fourth passport, that of Abdulaziz al-Omari was recovered from luggage that did not make it onto American Airlines Flight 11.[30]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
 
tigersnake said:
already been posted by baloo. I find it interesting that you didn't notice they investigated the 'controlled demolition' theory.

And I find it interesting that you're getting your info from Baloo now. Searching the NIST website it appears they didn't test a controlled demolition hypothesis because their findings (widely disputed) were conclusive enough to disregard it. That's for the twin towers too, no mention at all of WTC7.

Edit - after a bit more searching I found a secton on the possible controlled demolition of WTC7. Suffice to say that the assertions made are the same ones angering the 2000 architects and engineers (among others).

Baloo said:
Professional curiosity I would imagine. Such a massive event in their field I would be surprised if they didnt spend time to read and discuss the reports amongst themselves. I would if something that major happened in my field.

The average architect would never imagine building something the size of the twin towers. Why is their collapse so interesting to people not specialising in large steel framed high rise contstruction?

Baloo said:
So because profited from it he was complicit in blowing it up ? The WTC had already been a target of terrorist attacks so if I bought it I'd make sure it was insured against that sort of event again.

The timing of his purchase, the size of his insurance policy and the words he used directly after the event are all very suspicious IMO. His payout was enough to rebuild and still pocket billions. Why, unless you knew it was coming, would you insure aganst terrorist attack for more than the buildings' joint replacement value?

Baloo said:
No folly at all. There are things science can't prove, but can make educated guesses when it comes to evolution. The ID brigade are making assumptions as to what really happened and they have experts in their field in their corner. It's not that different if you ask me.

Name me one expert in their field that supports ID that hasn't been thouroughly discredited.
 
Disco08 said:
And I find it interesting that you're getting your info from Baloo now. Searching the NIST website it appears they didn't test a controlled demolition hypothesis because their findings (widely disputed) were conclusive enough to disregard it. That's for the twin towers too, no mention at all of WTC7.

I'm no expert duck geez. Just an interested citizen who has read the odd article, watched the odd doco, read sections of the Pop Mechanics report back when it was published. I read the wiki page Baloo posted, but he posted it, dunno what's odd about that. I did read an official account of blg 7 and the rejection of the demo theory. Widely disputed hugh? round and round it goes.

There has been evidence presented, the wiki synopsis of the official report, Noam Chompski's analysis, examples of other far less complex conspiracies that have failed dismally and quickly, nothing seems to make any difference. Whats the point?

This guy, one of the top intellects in the world, a fierce critic of the Bush (and Clinton) governments, as well as probably the world greatest critic of the mainstream media and how it manipulates the masses, a man who would never be in any way scared of being branded as unpatriotic, who has in fact been hounded for his criticism of US governments a lot, reckons a conspiracy is implausable. Me, an average bozo, will defer to this guy. Can you find anyone in the same league who supports the Truth movement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
 
The point to what? I'd say most people who are sceptical of the official reports are most mindful of the families who lost loved ones.

There's also been plenty of evidence presented by Harry and a couple of others questioning the official reports if we're point scoring. Have any of those made any difference to your opinion? I'd suggest not. Have you watched any of them?

tigersnake said:
This guy, one of the top intellects in the world, a fierce critic of the Bush (and Clinton) governments, as well as probably the world greatest critic of the mainstream media and how it manipulates the masses, reckons a conspiracy is implausable. Me, an average bozo, will defer to this guy. Can you find anyone in the same league who supports the Truth movement?

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

There are plenty of people who support the truth movement who I'd consider well above us mere bozos snake. I'd really rather not get into a "whose is bigger" contest though mate.
 
Disco08 said:
The point to what? I'd say most people who are sceptical of the official reports are most mindful of the families who lost loved ones.

There's also been plenty of evidence presented by Harry and a couple of others questioning the official reports if we're point scoring. Have any of those made any difference to your opinion? I'd suggest not. Have you watched any of them?

But we have responded to your evidence, logically and with other evidence refuting it. The thing is, everytime a detail or anomoly has raised my eyebrows, and it has in the past, there is nothing new on this thread, you only have to do a little digging to find a perfectly reasonable explanation for it.

Another thing is, I come from the position that a conspiracy is highly unlikely for all the reasons already discussed. So to convince me it would have to be very compelling. Haven't seen anything remotely close.
 
Disco08 said:
There's also been plenty of evidence presented by Harry and a couple of others questioning the official reports if we're point scoring. Have any of those made any difference to your opinion? I'd suggest not. Have you watched any of them?

I walked into this debate with the same thought as snakey. A conspiracy of this grand scale is just too big for any government / power broker collaboration to pull off.

I've had to research all these individual pieces of evidence you guys are throwing up and so far none of them, in my opinion, has left me thinking that there is no reasonable explanation for it.

So in summary, the premise that the WTC7 was blown up with explosives and or the wider WTC / 911 event was either manufactured by either the US government, WTC owner, Power broker families who stand to somehow gain from killing thousands of americans, is as fanciful as ID. Of course, that's just my opinion but I'm happy to change it if some real evidence of a conspiracy can be presented.
 
tigersnake said:
But we have responded to your evidence, logically and with other evidence refuting it. The thing is, everytime a detail or anomoly has raised my eyebrows, and it has in the past, there is nothing new on this thread, you only have to do a little digging to find a perfectly reasonable explanation for it.

Another thing is, I come from the position that a conspiracy is highly unlikely for all the reasons already discussed. So to convince me it would have to be very compelling. Haven't seen anything remotely close.

The links Harry posted to start this thread make many compelling points about WTC7 which I haven't seen refuted (certainly not by NIST anyway) and which you haven't addressed. Should I start listing them?

I've asked 3 or 4 times why NORAD forces would be made absent under the pretense of training exercises replicating events just like 9/11. Without this fact the plot was very unlikely to succeed. Do you think coincidence is an acceptable answer even though Bush's government should have been on high alert? In the same light, what are the reasonable explanations for these "coincidences":

Pilots on commercial flights were banned from carrying guns in July, 2001.

Military orders surrounding hijacked aircraft were changed from "shoot down" to "stand down" in July, 2001.
 
On NORAD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks

The misleading statements from NORAD IMO are more about people trying applying CYA tactics more than tryting to hide a conspiracy.

What's interesting is that planes did scramble and that the training base was actually 2 mins closer to NYC than their normal base.
 
Why would the entire defense system be elsewhere trainng when the government was aware of an impending threat from OBL?
 
The entire defence system wasn't elsewhere.

Despite being in training they still scrambled when called and where in fact closer to their destination than if they were at their normal base.

Not much more I can tell you Disco. If you want to know what I know about NORAD on the day, read wiki piece I just posted.
 
..excerpt...

Air defense stand down theory
A common claim among conspiracy theorists is that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) issued a stand down order or deliberately scrambled fighters late to allow the hijacked airplanes to reach their targets without interference. According to this theory, 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.[72] The Web site emperors-clothes.com argues that the U.S. military failed to do their job. StandDown.net's Mark R. Elsis says, "There is only one explanation for this .... Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."[75][76]
In September 2001, NORAD generals said they learned of the hijackings in time to scramble fighter jets. Later, the U.S. government released tapes claiming to show the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) did not tell the military about the hijackings until three of the four planes had crashed, a fact that would indicate that the FAA repeatedly lied to other U.S. government agencies.[77]
Phil Molé of Skeptic magazine has explained that it is neither quick nor easy to locate and intercept a plane behaving erratically, and that the hijackers turned off or disabled the onboard radar transponders. Without these transponder signals to identify the airplanes, the hijacked airplanes would have been only blips among 4,500 other blips on NORAD’s radar screens, making them very difficult to track.[72][75]
According to Popular Mechanics, only 14 fighter jets were on alert in the contiguous 48 states on 9/11. There was no automated method for the civilian air traffic controllers to alert NORAD.[75] A passenger airline had not been hijacked in the U.S. since 1979.[78] "They had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. According to Popular Mechanics, only one civilian plane was intercepted in the decade prior to 9/11, which took one hour and 22 minutes.[7
Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories