9-11 and conspiracy

[mtkafka]

Do you believe there was more to the 9-11 attacks than the media has shown us? Like the mysterious building 7 collapse... or the WTC 1 and 2 collapses, or some of the listed terrorists still being alive... etc etc etc

etc

[Tim Partlett]

The bigger the event the bigger the conspiracy theories surrounding it: JFK, the Apollo moon landing, etc. I would say the government is telling "pretty much" the truth. There's always spin and cover ups, but it's very hard for a democratic government to lie to its people and get away with it.

[SolomonGrundy]

interesting, i was just reading some sites this week and was wondering if 9/11 is the new JFK.
I will say, some if it seems plausible, but I can't believe even Bush and co. are that evil.

[russellmz00]

I will say, some if it seems plausible...

i disagree.

[Tyrion Lannister]

Where was Elvis in all this, eh? eh?

[mtkafka]

The bigger the event the bigger the conspiracy theories surrounding it: JFK, the Apollo moon landing, etc. I would say the government is telling "pretty much" the truth. There's always spin and cover ups, but it's very hard for a democratic government to lie to its people and get away with it.

Wasn't Germany a democracy before Hitler became Chancelor? Considering America's history with disinformation all the way back to the Spanish American War... I wouldn't be surprised if 9-11 WAS deliberately covered up. I won't go so far to say Bush and company had a hand in it... but then again most people didn't believe there was a conspiracy in the depression, by industrialists and politicians, to overthrow FDR with the Bonus Army... when there actually was. I just think there's alot of dirty stuff going on in the background, be it from the left or right.

I've been following some of these conspiracy sites on 9-11, and while I don't agree with alot of them, some of them do raise some credible arguments.

etc

[russellmz00]

...some of them do raise some credible arguments.



very, very few of them. i can't even remember the last time i heard a credible one. no doubt pushed out of mind by the "the planes that hit the tower had a 100 foot long bomb attached! look at these photos of the plane that has this dark shadow like thing on the fuselage!!" and "the towers were taken out by a giant laser developed by the military!" theories.

[mtkafka]

Well the only coverup that seems credible to me is the Building 7 collapse. That building just has no reason to collapse. As well, I still don't completely buy into the melting steel argument of the WTC 1 and 2 towers collapse. ITs possible all three were detonated!

etc

[Linoleum]

Reality is not subjective, ignorance of structural engineering and the energy potential of 10-20,000 gallons of jet fuel do not make conspiracy theories more true.

[mtkafka]

Building 7 didn't get hit by a plane, and pretty much all the fires were out when it collapsed in the afternoon of 9-11. Other building around wtc 1 and 2 had massive damage but never collapsed.

And WTC 1 and 2 were designed to take multiple hits from 707's.. which are practically the same size with similar fuel loadouts of a 767. This comes from a guy who managed the construction of WTC 1 and 2...

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

As well there was that recent intense inferno in Madrid Spain earlier this year of a high rise and ... it never collapsed....

http://www.detroitfirefighters.net/images/madrid4.jpg
http://www.detroitfirefighters.net/images/madrid5.jpg
http://www.detroitfirefighters.net/images/madrid1.jpg

etc

[mouselock]

I could have sworn a few months back I saw a report paper which blamed the collapse on the inclusion of literally tons of solid accelerant in the form of computer and other plastic equipment which, subjected to enough heat for enough time will eventually catch and burn like the fuel it is.

[Brian Rucker]

I remember seeing a special about the tower collapse. I think what I saw explained the collapse in terms of a fire that was hotter than expected. Not sure whether it was jetfuel, all of these craft had pretty good loads still in them, or something else. But the heat exceeded what the girders supporting the load could handle so the upper stories came crashing down onto the lower ones. It was more than they could handle so the whole thing just fell straight down collapsing, pancaking, on itself.

Not sure I've really kept up with the conspiracy theories about 9/11. The actual negligence before but especially since, including Iraq, by this administration is mind boggling enough. I don't even need to go there to worked up a righteous fury. Is it possible there was a conspiracy? I'd say not very likely at all. Think about it. If you're planning something like this you have to assume it's going to get more scruitiny than any other event in the recent history of this country. Not only by government investigators but the press and even the relatives of the thousands who've died. There's no way a conspiracy could withstand that kind of direct, constant, scruitiny. The consequences of exposure would be beyond imagining.

For one thing, I don't want to think even my domestic political enemies are capable of such things. It's very disturbing. For another, it makes no kind of sense given the risks. I will say folks took ample advantage of the tragedy to advance political agendas to the point it looks plausible to some people that 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to them and their causes. That doesn't necessarily mean they're happy it happened much less that they caused it.

[extarbags]

The actual negligence before but especially since, including Iraq, by this administration is mind boggling enough. I don't even need to go there to worked up a righteous fury.

This is exactly how I feel.

[Banzai]

In my structural engineering class (at one of the nation's top engineering departments), the professor showed us some reports, by official investigators and the designer of the towers, that specifically said that the fire retardent coating on the steel members wasn't designed to withstand the impact of an airliner (a reasonable assumption pre-9/11) and that some of it had been broken loose in the tremendous impact, leaving the steel unprotected. This drastically lowered the maximum temperature the structure could maintain, directly causing the eventual collapses.

[russellmz00]

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."


http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/

The north tower stood for 100 minutes after the attack, while the south tower stood for only 60 minutes (CNN.com). When the planes first struck the towers, they created damage in two forms. First, the aircraft severed several of the exterior support columns as well as the central core, making it impossible to travel by elevator and very difficult to travel by stairs on and above the floors impacted. Second, the instant after the each plane hit the towers, approximately 24,000 gallons of fuel ignited, engulfing the twin towers in flames (howstuffworks.com). The World Trade Center's tube design, with most of the building's support on the exterior, is what kept the towers standing for around an hour. This is because the support was spread throughout the tower, and the Boeing 767s did not destroy enough columns to make the towers collapse immediately. In other words, the towers did not fall due to the impact of the planes, but rather due to the impact of the massive fires.

The infrastructure that was already weakened by the plane's initial impact was severely damaged soon after the fires began. "Fireproofed steel loses half its strength when it reaches 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit and fails rapidly above 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit; temperatures inside the building were likely even higher" (Snoonian and Czarnecki 24). It was only a matter of time until the towers' supports would be exhausted and collapse. Most likely, the south tower fell before the north tower because the plane struck it at lower floors than in the north tower. With more weight placed on the south tower's supports, less time passed before it collapsed.

http://architecture.about.com/library/weekly/aawtc-collapse.htm
Could the World Trade Center have been made stronger?
In a report produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and other organizations, experts concluded that no skyscraper could have withstood the impact of the terrorist airplanes. Further, the experts warned that it would not be "technically feasible" to design a building that could survive this type of terrorist attack. Instead, engineers and architects are suggesting that we focus our efforts on designing better warning and evacuation systems so that we can save more people inside the buildings.

http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp
In the Silverstein study, engineers put forth similar but not exact failure scenarios for both towers: The planes and flying debris hobbled the buildings at the zones of impact. Intact columns, their fireproofing knocked off by flying debris, ultimately lost strength and failed in the fuel-triggered fire.

from what limited information from non-conspiracy sites i've read (looking for "impact twin towers 707" brings up millions of conspiracy spam) the 707 impact was supposed to be from a pilot, lost in fog going as slow as possible accidentally hitting a tower, not kamikazes going full speed. look up the momentum formula and you get the idea why that's significantly different.

also read up on pbs.org's "why the towers fell".

and let me know what kind of jet fuel was burning in that madrid building fire.

if there is a coverup, it's more in the mundane "air quality at ground zero" and other health issues. i am assuming the coverup poll option meant shit like "bush planted the explosives himself!"

[playingwithknives]

Ive seen plenty of docu's on why WTC1 and 2 collapsed, and it was all logically presented and made perfect sense.

Building 7 though, no reasoning at all behind its collapse, nothing makes sense there.

[Prodigy]

Do you believe there was more to the 9-11 attacks than the media has shown us?

No. I even think there is less.

[mtkafka]

Ive seen plenty of docu's on why WTC1 and 2 collapsed, and it was all logically presented and made perfect sense.

Building 7 though, no reasoning at all behind its collapse, nothing makes sense there.

The conspiracy side of me says WTC 7 was SUPPOSED to be hit by a plane... but it didn't make it. The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was probably heading to it or possible to the Capitol building.

And with WTC 1 and 2... yeah I've read the truss and pancake collapse stories... but if you really look at how the towers fell.. I mean my eyes tell me something else is going on...the top 1/3rd of the towers literally disintegrated into dust... it didn't just collapse in my eyes.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/docs/site1085.jpg

This photo just doesn't look like a 'pancaking' to me... maybe I'm just kooky.... looks like demolition... like this building was.

http://www.merit.edu/~jimmoran/detphot/hud_kd_fall3.gif

etc

[Duality]

Building 7 didn't get hit by a plane, and pretty much all the fires were out when it collapsed in the afternoon of 9-11. Other building around wtc 1 and 2 had massive damage but never collapsed.
The owner of WTC7, Larry Silverstein, pretty much stated that they took it down in a PBS documentary. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Controversy), at least.
"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, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

[Ben Sones]

And with WTC 1 and 2... yeah I've read the truss and pancake collapse stories... but if you really look at how the towers fell.. I mean my eyes tell me something else is going on...the top 1/3rd of the towers literally disintegrated into dust... it didn't just collapse in my eyes.

The floors of the building are pancaking, expelling everything between them (particularly non-structural building material like drywall, which is probably responsible for most of that dust) outwards with great force. The mass of 1/4 of a skyscraper is considerable. Whatever it falls on isn't going to merely get crushed, it's going to explode. You can recreate this effect on your own, if you aren't clear on the physical forces at work. Put a bunch of light debris (ripped up pieces of paper, whatever) on a flat surface and slam something flat and heavy (like a book) down on top of them. Observe what happens. The person who wrote that "why didn't the pieces simply fall down?" caption is an idiot. Anyone with a high school-level understanding of physics could explain why.

[curst]

I remember seeing a special about the tower collapse. I think what I saw explained the collapse in terms of a fire that was hotter than expected. Not sure whether it was jetfuel, all of these craft had pretty good loads still in them, or something else. But the heat exceeded what the girders supporting the load could handle so the upper stories came crashing down onto the lower ones. It was more than they could handle so the whole thing just fell straight down collapsing, pancaking, on itself.

I distinctly remember reading about how the hijackers purposefully picked their flights based on two criteria:

- cross-country flights would naturally demand more fuel (which, when detonated, would vastly increase the destructive power of the explosion - bear in mind that jet fuel is absolutely not the stuff you put in your car, this stuff gets unbelievably hot when ignited)
- light on passengers to reduce the risk of people interfering (not sure that the lighter laod would somehow allow the planes to consume less fuel or not, but it might have been another factor)

As far as the collapse of the towers goes, I read a fantastic post on PoE-News' forums (http://www.poe-news.com/forums/sp.php?si=31&fi=000049441&ti=1000946606&pi=1000947004) (read that one and the one directly below it by RockBolt) that summarizes everything I've read that has convinced me there is no cover-up regarding the towers' collapse.

[Doug Erickson]

No cover up; just crass opportunism to push the neocon agenda.

[mtkafka]

Well, what about building 7? If Building 7 WAS demolished.. and even FEMA admits to being puzzled at its collapse, don't you think that could imply a conspiracy? Not even the fancy scientists have a logical solution to the WTC 7 collapse. SO.... lets think about that a minute... if one buiilding was demolished on purpose would it be unrealistic to think other buildings were too?!? Or maybe they had a demolition crew ready for a quicky... I mean what was it... 8 hours from the attacks? Pretty good demo crew!

Look at these WTC 7 videos and tell me they weren't demolished.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

etc

[Damien Falgoust]

Well, what about building 7? If Building 7 WAS demolished.. and even FEMA admits to being puzzled at its collapse, don't you think that could imply a conspiracy?
No.

Ockham's Razor, dude. What's simpler: (1) terrorists hijack and fly an airliner into the towers, a combination of impact and heat weakened and collapsed WTC 1 and 2, with WTC 7 suffering as-yet undetermined damage, or (2) the towers were intentionally brought down in a huge conspiracy involving literally hundreds of people, including presumably airport personnel in Boston, requiring months if not years of preparation for both the actual demolition and the elaborate terrorist cover story?

Wide ranging conspiracies like this simply don't exist, because the odds of someone talking or giving up a key piece of evidence inadvertantly increases exponentially with ever additional person brought into the fold.

Also, Oswald acted alone, dammit.

[John Many Jars]

If the Bush administration were really that desperate to justify a planned invasion of Iraq, wouldn't they have made it look like Saddam were behind 9-11, rather than al Qaeda? And wouldn't they have gone after Iraq right away, rather than intervening in Afghanistan first and then waiting all of 2002?

The Afghan war can't have been even part of the point of any conspiracy --- there was no profiteering to be done there, so what was to be gained? Bush's ratings in 2001 weren't good, but the election was years away; it wasn't a desperate PR situation by any means.

Wouldn't Bush have been ready to make a brave speech right away on 9/11, instead of haplessly continuing with "My Pet Goat" or whatever it was and letting Rudy Giuliani be the hero of the day?

And, if they *did* stage 9/11 to justify Afghanistan, wouldn't they have staged another attack of some sort to justify Iraq, rather than depending on the short attention spans and flag waving of a mere 51% of the country?

And wouldn't they have been willing to plant WMDs to justify the Iraq invasion retroactively? That deception would have been easy and cheap compared with staging 9/11, so why not?

Never mind the unfeasibly large number of people who would have to have been involved in a 9/11 coverup, and never mind that conspiracy guys always rely on this kind of armchair science --- post Kennedy, everyone was suddenly a ballistics and marksmanship expert; post 9/11, everyone became a structural engineer --- and never mind Occam's Razor!

There's just no semiplausible motivation for such a conspiracy.

[mtkafka]

I'm just saying there seems to be a coverup on some facts of 9-11.. and still no clear cut explanation of WTC 7... and as you said its as-yet undetermined. Well I guess one of the biggest, or THE biggest crimes in US history can just ... well I guess we can say it was Murphy's Law with WTC 7. Sure. I'm glad we got the truth out.

Oh yeah Oswald acted alone and Ruby acted alone, the Warren Commision told the whole truth and there is no such thing as war profiteering.

etc

[Troy S Goodfellow]

If by "cover-up" you mean that we don't know everything, sure, I buy it. For security reasons or something it is very likely that a lot of information is classified.

If by "cover-up" you mean that the government is hiding the fact that it could have done more to prevent 9/11, but didn't, either through incompetence or ignorance, then I might accept that too.

If by "cover-up" you mean that this government - not smart enough to plant WMDs in Iraq to cover their ass and too dimwitted to make that yellow-cake thing stick - was complicit in a murderous endeavor to create an atmosphere of fear and pursue an imperial foreign policy, that I cannot believe for all the reasons people have listed above.

So which "cover-up" definition are you using?

Troy

[mtkafka]

If by "cover-up" you mean that we don't know everything, sure, I buy it. For security reasons or something it is very likely that a lot of information is classified.

If by "cover-up" you mean that the government is hiding the fact that it could have done more to prevent 9/11, but didn't, either through incompetence or ignorance, then I might accept that too.

If by "cover-up" you mean that this government - not smart enough to plant WMDs in Iraq to cover their ass and too dimwitted to make that yellow-cake thing stick - was complicit in a murderous endeavor to create an atmosphere of fear and pursue an imperial foreign policy, that I cannot believe for all the reasons people have listed above.

So which "cover-up" definition are you using?

Troy

All three. I think its pretty naive to believe EVERYBODY in the intelligence community had no friggin clue of an attack. History shows us that conspiracies aren't that far fetched. I mean look at the Northwoods Document....

The document was drafted with the intent of getting public support for an invasion of Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff argued that the US population would only support military intervention in Cuba in the event of provocative, aggressive action by the island nation against American soldiers, American civilians or Cuban refugees and Cubans in exile. The document frequently refers to staging fake attacks with fake victims, but in other cases does not specify whether the attacks should be fake or real, and for some recommended attacks explicitly notes that they could be real. Had Operation Northwoods been carried out, it would likely have required the coordinative efforts of the Central Intelligence Agency, which is mentioned several times.

Some of the recommendations of Operation Northwoods proposed by the Joint Chiefs were:

* Using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba.
* Start false rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
* Stage mock attacks, sabotages and riots and blame it on Cuban forces
* Sink an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base - reminiscent of the USS Maine incident at Havana in 1898, which started the Spanish-American War - or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces. (The document refers to unmanned drones, fake funerals etc.)
* "Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
* Destroy a fake commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday" (really an unmanned drone)
* Stage a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees:

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods#Content

This is just one example. I mean, come on, Iran Contra itself proves there is some shady shit happening in America. Now I won't go so far as to say there's some evil cabal that wants to enslave us... more like money, power and keeping control. America has its own brand of subtle propaganda... I mean we do have the best advertising wizards on the planet! Have you seen commercials from other countries??!

etc

[AttAdude]

There are some strange things that happened that day. the damage to the pentagon makes a good example of strangeness. I however am inclined to believe that is a lack of understanding on my part. Even tho i despise bush and his cronies for what they have done, i have trouble putting 9/11 on their shoulders. There may still be some things that where shady esp the day after, but all in all i just don't see our leadership doing something that could only be described as grand strategy only to fuck it up at every corner for the next few years. Bush has screwed the pooch on every single aspect of his post 9/11 strat, i cant see a reason why he/them/their masters could have gone retarded if they had engineered 9/11.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Yeah, but Operation Northwoods didn't happen. It was suggested but never implemented. So it's not a conspiracy in place - it's a list of ideas that CIA put together. And they were rejected probably because they could not be securely put into place.

They were also contingent on the failure of attempts at internal destabilization and were rendered neuter by the deal over Cuba after the Missile Crisis. Pointing to Operation Northwoods as an example of a conspiracy is only half the story. Plus, there was no plan to inflict casualties on American civilians, merely the destruction of ammo, damage to installations and the "arrest" of "intruders". The document itself is certainly interesting, though. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf)

And Iran-Contra unravelled pretty quickly. The first contacts with Iran were in Summer 1985 and you had public reporting in November 1986. Here we are almost four years from 9/11 and there is nothing compelling to suggest a wide ranging government conspiracy.

Do I think that a democratic government is capable of shady stuff? Absolutely. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that they could get away with something this big for very long.

Troy

[jeffd]

It was said earlier but it bears repeating - ignorance of physics, structural engineering, etc does not a conspiracy make.

I'm just saying there seems to be a coverup on some facts of 9-11.. and still no clear cut explanation of WTC 7... and as you said its as-yet undetermined. Well I guess one of the biggest, or THE biggest crimes in US history can just ... well I guess we can say it was Murphy's Law with WTC 7. Sure. I'm glad we got the truth out.

Oh yeah Oswald acted alone and Ruby acted alone, the Warren Commision told the whole truth and there is no such thing as war profiteering.

etc

[forgeforsaken]

The war games that were being run on 9/11 are enough to at least raise an eyebrow.

[Linoleum]

All three. I think its pretty naive to believe EVERYBODY in the intelligence community had no friggin clue of an attack. History shows us that conspiracies aren't that far fetched. I mean look at the Northwoods Document....

At present I'm in a lead role on a small development team of less than thirty people. These people occupy the same couple thousand square feet of space and spend the majority of their waking hours together. Despite my best efforts and keeping communication flowing, there are still mind boggling instances of miscommunication or lack of communication that pop up.

I'm not quite sure why people expect organizations of thousands of people, each with their own segmented departments are going to communicate effectively with each other, much less with other organizations that they don't like very much. And everything is spread across multiple physical locations and dozens if not hundreds of seperate data networks and publication streams. That pretty much sums up the US intelligence world.

[Menzo]

What is all this talk about how the towers collapsed? The entire world watched as planes flew into them! Are these people suggesting that the government was ready to demolish the World Trade Center and they just happened to pick the same day that terrorists flew planes into them.

Now's our chance! Hit the switch and bring em down!

Seriously, do you know how long it takes to place demolitions for a project that large? It'd take months, if not longer. You could just run up to the top with a bunch of sticks of dynamite and throw them in a pile.

There's plenty to hate the Bush administration about without pinning this on them.

[Uncle Larry]

There's plenty to hate the Bush administration about without pinning this on them.
http://network.news.com.au/image/0,10114,5021178,00.jpg

[mtkafka]

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/wtc-7-small.gif

I was never hit by a plane! A fire brought me down!

Larry Silverstein, interviewed in

"America Rebuilds", PBS Home Video

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You 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."

http://www.reopen911.org/images/02.jpg

He should have pulled this building actually. Or maybe the Spanish make better buildings?

etc

[Sean Hargraves]

The 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy. A conspiracy that failed!

Jackie Chan is still alive.

[Menzo]

So what, exactly, are you suggesting?

That planes really didn't hit the WTC? That there was no fire? That demolitions crews secretly entered the WTC grounds (multiple buildings) over the course of several months and detonated the buildings, killing several thousand people, so that Bush could justify a war against Iraq that has now cost another couple thousand lives?

Give me a break. This is just cuckoo.

[Linoleum]

He should have pulled this building actually. Or maybe the Spanish make better buildings?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

I'm done.

[Prodigy]

So what, exactly, are you suggesting?

That planes really didn't hit the WTC? That there was no fire? That demolitions crews secretly entered the WTC grounds (multiple buildings) over the course of several months and detonated the buildings, killing several thousand people, so that Bush could justify a war against Iraq that has now cost another couple thousand lives?

Give me a break. This is just cuckoo.

Exactly.

The main problem I have with this so-called conspiracy is the purpose behind it. It just doesn't add up, or doesn't make sense.

[mtkafka]

So what, exactly, are you suggesting?

That planes really didn't hit the WTC? That there was no fire? That demolitions crews secretly entered the WTC grounds (multiple buildings) over the course of several months and detonated the buildings, killing several thousand people, so that Bush could justify a war against Iraq that has now cost another couple thousand lives?

Give me a break. This is just cuckoo.

Exactly.

The main problem I have with this so-called conspiracy is the purpose behind it. It just doesn't add up, or doesn't make sense.

Planting bombs in WTC 1 2 and 7, imo, wouldn't take more than most people would think. Maybe a dozen demolition experts at most over a seasons time? Who knows... I seriosuly think at LEAST WTC 7 was purposely brought down. WTC 1 and 2 I can buy the original stories.. but if WTC 7 was brought down (as I believe) then that makes WTC 1 and 2 very very possible too.

I'm not suggesting this DID happen or that Bush personally oversaw the crime of the century, or that terrorists are not involved. I'm just saying there is MORE to 9-11 than just Al Qaida terrorists with plastic boxcutters ramming planes into buildings. I mean just look at Bin Laden and his past. Look at Bush's past his family's past. Look at who would actually benefit from a war on terror. Lets remember that 'elected' officials can start wars on shaky or even made up evidence... whats to stop them from crashing 4 planes into buildings and making it look like somebody else did it?

Maybe I AM cynical and nuts. But read up on covert operation of the CIA (or formerly OSS)... documents and testimonies that were actually released due to the Freedom of Information Act (and this is PUBLIC STUFF! IMAGINE THE STUFF THEY DESTROYED!) Some of the slimy shit they did leads me to believe its not that far from reality of there possibly being a 'shadowy' conspiracy in 9-11.

etc

[Menzo]

Maybe I AM cynical and nuts.

Bingo. At least in this case.

[Brian Rucker]

I've read some pretty scarey shit about what the CIA was capable of. Once while searching for something else I ran across an entire assassination manual the CIA was using to train native agents in Central America in the 50s or 60s. I'm talking explanations for how to go about planning, diagrams for different kinds of rooms and hits, how to clear a room effectively, different methods of killing, etc.

And this was, if I recall correctly, part of a FOIA release. It was a .pdf on the CIA site of all things. Crap like this is why the CIA got its wings clipped in the 70s. And now they're all up in arms complaining about it. Well, what makes anyone think they wouldn't just indulge in it all over again? Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you're dealing with billions in black budget items there must be some, in the words of the general from Apocalypse Now, "temptation to play god with these people."

"And the better angels of our nature do not always win."

That said, only the most corrupt and cynical officers used many of these tactics. And even they would likely blanch at the idea of a 9/11 directed at American targets. Too big a risk of exposure. Too uncertain of an outcome. Besides, alot of those old school CIA agents really told themselves they were doing good work for national security. It'd be hard to convince yourself that was the case here.

[Andrew Mayer]

Here's where it gets wierd (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A6632-2004May6&notFound=true) for me:

Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.

It is unclear what information was on the tape because no one ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated it, the report by the Department of Transportation inspector general said.

.....


Hours after the hijacked planes flew into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, an FAA manager at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center gathered six controllers who communicated or tracked two of the hijacked planes and recorded in a one-hour interview their personal accounts of what occurred, the report stated.

The manager, who is not named in the report, said that his intentions were to provide quick information to federal officials investigating the attack before the air traffic controllers involved took sick leave for the stress of their experiences, as is common practice.

According to the report, a second manager at the New York center promised a union official representing the controllers that he would "get rid of" the tape after controllers used it to provide written statements to federal officials about the events of the day.

Instead, the second manager said he destroyed the tape between December 2001 and January 2002 by crushing the tape with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the pieces into trash cans around the building, the report said.

It's like something out of a movie.

[Bren]

I believe that WTC 1 and 2 fell as a result of the damage and fires caused by the two aircraft collisions.

I'm not deeply familiar with the situation around WTC 7, but I don't find the idea that it was purposely demolished incredible.

What I do find a little hard to accept is the remarkable coordination and effectiveness of the attacks.

The scale of the war games taking place that day was almost unprecedented, and put an enormous amount of air power outside response range.

Commanders attempting to scramble interceptors didn't have enough planes available to cover the skies, having to choose between potential hijack signals. As a result, their response was extremely inadequate.

Hard info about the crash of Flight 93 is hard to come by. I can understand why details are vague, but it's just another factor that makes the story as a whole hard to accept.

I haven't quite been able to buy the whole Pentagon thing either.

I'd be curious to hear what others think of this video (http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main).

[playingwithknives]

The main problem I have with this so-called conspiracy is the purpose behind it. It just doesn't add up, or doesn't make sense.

The introduction of a modern day Oceania, in order to ease in a full police state and establish the power base of the Illuminati, the Bohemiam Grove group, the Gnomes of Zurich, Templars, Freemasons, those guys who cover up the bloodline of Jesus and Mary, the alien civilisation that crashed at Roswell, Microsoft and the rest of the secret societies that control the world for generations to come.

[Bren]

The Project for the New American Century describes the neo-con plan for the US pretty clearly. It even states: "The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event–like a new Pearl Harbor." This was in 2000.

It wouldn't be necessary to plan or initiate a terrorist attack, it would only be necessary to allow it to happen.

"It must be remembered that the first job of any conspiracy, whether it be in politics, crime or within a business office, is to convince everyone else that no conspiracy exists. The conspirators' success will be determined largely by their ability to do this."
- Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

The Illuminati doesn't exist. This message brought to you by the Illuminati.

[playingwithknives]

The Project for the New American Century describes the neo-con plan for the US pretty clearly

The wiki on that revealed to me

Some have raised concerns that the project has been proposing military and economic domination of land, space, and cyberspace by the United States, so as to establish American dominance in world affairs

My emphasis, because I remembered reading this the other day.

the US Department of Commerce (DoC) has made it clear it intends to retain control of the internet's root servers indefinitely. It was due to relinquish that control in September 2006, when its contract with overseeing body ICANN ended. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/01/bush_net_policy/)

[Bren]

Eesh. For some reason that brings to mind the WotW tagline: "THEY ARE ALREADY HERE." ;)

[Andrew Mayer]

Fnord you very much.

[Linoleum]

What I do find a little hard to accept is the remarkable coordination and effectiveness of the attacks.

Hard to accept in light of the several years of planning by dedicated individuals?

Commanders attempting to scramble interceptors didn't have enough planes available to cover the skies, having to choose between potential hijack signals. As a result, their response was extremely inadequate.

Utter nonsense. The reality was pre-9/11, the information chain was in such a delay loop coming out of FAA that fighters were scrambled too late and too far away to do any good, and were vectored to the wrong place.

Hard info about the crash of Flight 93 is hard to come by. I can understand why details are vague, but it's just another factor that makes the story as a whole hard to accept.

People talking to friends/family about how they're going to rush the cockpit and shortly thereafter the plane augers in?

I haven't quite been able to buy the whole Pentagon thing either.

That what, a plane didn't hit the Pentagon despite the wreckage and eyewitness accounts?

[Ben]

Bren- Ah yes, the old "There's so little evidence of a conspiracy there must be a conspiracy!" argument.

[Bren]

What I do find a little hard to accept is the remarkable coordination and effectiveness of the attacks.

Hard to accept in light of the several years of planning by dedicated individuals?

Admittedly, Osama and friends were trained by the best. But I'm surprised how accurately and capably they were able to execute their plan. As a parent, I appreciate the logistics involved in getting that many people to an airport on time. That's a joke, BTW.

Commanders attempting to scramble interceptors didn't have enough planes available to cover the skies, having to choose between potential hijack signals. As a result, their response was extremely inadequate.

Utter nonsense. The reality was pre-9/11, the information chain was in such a delay loop coming out of FAA that fighters were scrambled too late and too far away to do any good, and were vectored to the wrong place.

Further reality is that the FAA (a civilian authority) is largely removed from the standard response procedures dealing with aircraft known or suspected to be hijacked. For a minimal example, as should have been the case with Flight 77, intercept craft would have been scrambled as a standard response as soon as the transponder became inactive, with or without info from the FAA. The FAA is not at all part of the loop on scrambling intercept fighters. There is a lot of easily corroborated and non-conspiratorial info available about the failing of intercepts on 9/11. Blaming the FAA is not realistic. Do you believe NORAD or the Pentagon is reliant on the FAA to tell them what is going on in US airspace?

Hard info about the crash of Flight 93 is hard to come by. I can understand why details are vague, but it's just another factor that makes the story as a whole hard to accept.

People talking to friends/family about how they're going to rush the cockpit and shortly thereafter the plane augers in?

I don't consider that hard info. I'd like to read the cockpit recording transcripts -- which have never been released -- from Flight 93 or any of the craft involved in 9/11. I think that's strange.

Stranger, the FBI did finally allow the families of those on Flight 93 to read transcripts, under controlled conditions. They weren't allowed to record, or even make notes, nor was the press present. One of them even said he learned things from the tape that he did not know before.

I haven't quite been able to buy the whole Pentagon thing either.

That what, a plane didn't hit the Pentagon despite the wreckage and eyewitness accounts?

Which accounts? The accounts of eyewitnesses who said they thought it was a missile or small commuter craft? Early eyewitness accounts that described a 757 coming in at an "unrecoverable angle", which later conflicted with the level flight before impact story? The CNN report initially saying there was no evidence of a plane? ABC reporting it was a truck bomb?

Not one video record?

What wreckage?

[Linoleum]

Do you believe NORAD or the Pentagon is reliant on the FAA to tell them what is going on in US airspace?

Before 9/11? Yes. Now entering US airspace, or entering certain restricted zones within US airspace, that is a different matter.

[russellmz00]

Which accounts? The accounts of eyewitnesses who said they thought it was a missile or small commuter craft? Early eyewitness accounts that described a 757 coming in at an "unrecoverable angle", which later conflicted with the level flight before impact story? The CNN report initially saying there was no evidence of a plane? ABC reporting it was a truck bomb?

Not one video record?

What wreckage?

you do realize eyewitness accounts are the least accurate way to get info? during the war of the worlds radio broadcast people were panicking because they thought the nazis were invading the us. early news reports were inaccurate, this is the conspiracy? look at news reporting when they aren't shitting themselves. and there are plenty of eyewitness accoutns of a large passenger plane hitting the pentagon.

there was a video record. but that was happenstance, since most of life is not recorded. i can't find it because of all the spam "911 is a conspiracy" sites.

the wreckage in the picture at snopes.com (http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm)?

Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:

{shows a picture of wreckage}

...

Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:

btw, here's another plane crash that hit a building. was that a conspiracy too?

www.corrosion-doctors.org/ Aircraft/el-al.htm

ten seconds of searching on google for that pic.

btw, please explain to me why using a small plane/missile then saying a big plane was used makes more sense than actually using a big plane in the first place?

[Bren]

you do realize eyewitness accounts are the least accurate way to get info?

I do, that was part of the point. Lino is the one who brought up eyewitness accounts. There were all kinds of different eyewitness accounts, in this as in most cases. Hence the need for hard info.

during the war of the worlds radio broadcast people were panicking because they thought the nazis were invading the us.

Martians, but I get the point.

there was a video record. but that was happenstance, since most of life is not recorded. i can't find it because of all the spam "911 is a conspiracy" sites.

If it's the only official video I know of, it shows a one frame blur very low to the ground. The Zapruder film, it ain't. If anything, it makes the argument for a small plane.

There was at least one other video, a gas station security camera, that the manager turned over to the FBI, before watching it. It has never been released.

the wreckage in the picture at snopes.com (http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm)?

Yep, that's the one photo of wreckage I know of that's official. By official, I mean we can be reasonably sure it is one it looks like -- a piece of wreckage on the Pentgon yard on 9/11. There is another of a wheel I'm not so sure about. That's not much wreckage, is it? And it's a pretty big piece, too. Where are other big pieces?

The damage was extensive, agreed. But not nearly as extensive as at WTC. The Pentagon was a hardened building, yes. But we've all seen the WTC video, of at least the second hit, right? The collision damage was incredible. The fireball was enormous. The damage to the Pentagon just isn't consistent, to my eye.

In the case of the WTC, I've seen analysis and simulations up the wazoo on the collisions and collapses. I haven't seen anything comparable on the Pentagon collision. Not being an expert, I can't speak with any authority. But the undamaged lawn, and the downright neatness of the damage to the Pentagon, just doesan't add up for me. You gotta admit, that 12 foot "punch out" hole looks almost surgical, no?

btw, here's another plane crash that hit a building. was that a conspiracy too?

www.corrosion-doctors.org/ Aircraft/el-al.htm

ten seconds of searching on google for that pic btw.

I'm not sure how it's relevant. There's a lot of damage and debris though, isn't there?

btw, please explain to me why using a small plane/missile then saying a big plane was used makes more sense than actually using a big plane in the first place?

That, Russell, I cannot answer without speculating. That would be fiction. Me, personally, I just can't reconcile what I know to be official evidence with the story. It has plot holes that the released evidence just don't seem to fill. You may be satisified, that's fine. I'm not. I wish they'd release more! Maybe in this case, the truth is stranger than fiction?

[BooTx]

Some wreckage. (http://bootx.homestead.com/files/pentagon/pct.html)

Regardless though, I don't know why you're expecting to find large pieces of debris. This is a jet flying into a nearly solid object at (supposedly) 530 miles an hour. The parts of the plane are either going to enter the building, or they're going to be destroyed. It's not going to hit the building, bounce off, and land in the lawn.

The collision damage was incredible. The fireball was enormous.

If you look at the other (http://bootx.homestead.com/files/pentagon/twofps.gif) frames of the gate camera, you can see a pretty large fireball as well. For reference, the Pentagon is about 77 feet tall. I've never seen it happen myself, but I doubt a commuter jet is going to create a 150 foot tall fireball. I also don't think it would cause as much damage as what was caused, but I digress.

The damage to the Pentagon just isn't consistent.

I don't know what you would consider "consistent". I don't know about you, but I certainly don't have any videos or pictures of a plane that size, traveling that fast, and hitting a building similar to that of the Pentagon. Personally I can't imagine the wings or the tail smashing through the facade at all. They're just too weak, and the structure is too strong. That leaves the fuselage which is only about 12 feet wide.

I've seen analysis and simulations up the wazoo on the collisions and collapses. I haven't seen anything comparable on the Pentagon collision.

Purdue (http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/pentagonVis_files/pentagonVis2003.mpg) ran a simulation of it, but I don't know what you'd take away from it. It's a neat little video if nothing else...

No mark on the lawn. (http://bootx.homestead.com/files/pentagon/nomark.jpg)

The concrete in front of the Pentagon extends out to about 32 yards where the plane hit the building. That mark is roughly a hundred feet long, and shows about 2/3 of the plane (from the engines to the back). From the engines to the front is another 50 feet, which is consistent with the length of a Boeing 757 (about 155 feet long).

I came up with that picture (from a conspiracy site no less) which shows that mark right in front of the impact site. I zoomed in and outlined it in red, but you can find the full image here (http://members.shaw.ca/freedomseven/pentagon-path-marker.jpg). I don't hear many people talking about it (okay actually I don't hear anybody talking about it). That's odd when you consider that it's size, shape, and direction is pretty consistent with the official story.

[russellmz00]

during the war of the worlds radio broadcast people were panicking because they thought the nazis were invading the us.

Martians, but I get the point.


no bren, some people actually thought the nazis were invading. hence my point about eye(ear)witnesses being unreliable.

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/war-of-the-worlds-radio-broadcast-part-4.htm
Of course, not everyone who tuned in to the broadcast believed it. Some who had read the original Wells novel recognized the story line. Others caught on as the incidents in the play began occurring much too fast to be taking place in real time. And yet others, who feared an invasion from across the sea, concluded that the Nazis were storming the Atlantic beaches.

http://www.parascope.com/nb/1096/wells.htm
A great many Americans who heard only part of the War of the Worlds broadcast thought the Germans had attacked New Jersey! Even when the radio identified the fictional enemy as Martians, people didn't believe it. One man said afterward, "I knew it was some Germans trying to gas all of us. When the announcer kept calling them people from Mars, I just thought he was ignorant and didn't know yet that Hitler had sent them all."

even back in the 30s people knew news reporters get the story wrong all the time. there's your "truck bomb" and "no plane" reports.


there was a video record. but that was happenstance, since most of life is not recorded. i can't find it because of all the spam "911 is a conspiracy" sites.

If it's the only official video I know of, it shows a one frame blur very low to the ground. The Zapruder film, it ain't. If anything, it makes the argument for a small plane.

how? it showed a large plane and matches the official description. here's a copy i found from a 911 conspiracy site:

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.gif

there's one frame that shows a huge fireball and the tail of the plane at the other edge of the image, occupying totalling over 3/4 of the image. not a small plane.


the wreckage in the picture at snopes.com (http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm)?

Yep, that's the one photo of wreckage I know of that's official. By official, I mean we can be reasonably sure it is one it looks like -- a piece of wreckage on the Pentgon yard on 9/11. There is another of a wheel I'm not so sure about. That's not much wreckage, is it? And it's a pretty big piece, too. Where are other big pieces?

the plane flew into the pentagon and pierced 5 rings in a ball of jet fuel. they were burned up or spread inside the pentagon.

The damage was extensive, agreed. But not nearly as extensive as at WTC. The Pentagon was a hardened building, yes. But we've all seen the WTC video, of at least the second hit, right? The collision damage was incredible. The fireball was enormous. The damage to the Pentagon just isn't consistent, to my eye.

the blurry video had a huge fireball, remember?

http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.

"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."

When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.

It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.

All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.



In the case of the WTC, I've seen analysis and simulations up the wazoo on the collisions and collapses. I haven't seen anything comparable on the Pentagon collision. Not being an expert, I can't speak with any authority. But the undamaged lawn, and the downright neatness of the damage to the Pentagon, just doesan't add up for me. You gotta admit, that 12 foot exit hole looks almost surgical, no?

not comparable? it pierced through every one of the FIVE rings of the pentagon. you know, the largest office building in the world. the other guy was complaining the civilian wtc took too much damage, you're complaining the military hardened pentagon didn't take enough.

the hole looked like the place where an engine rammed through then the fire and heat vented through.


btw, please explain to me why using a small plane/missile then saying a big plane was used makes more sense than actually using a big plane in the first place?

That, Russell, I cannot answer without speculating. That would be fiction. Me, personally, I just can't reconcile what I know to be official evidence with the story. It has plot holes that the released evidence just don't seem to fill. You may be satisified, that's fine. I'm not. I wish they'd release more! Maybe in this case, the truth is stranger than fiction?

you can't explain it because it makes no sense at all. NONE. they make a plane disappear but don't use it to hit the pentagon. they use a small plane in broad daylight where god and everyone can see it and one japanese tourist with a camcorder would fuck them over. it makes no sense. then they have guys run onto the lawn and spread some debris because they knew a small plane wouldn't make enough but forget to add a lot because, um, well, it fits the conspiracy theory. whatever.

[Bren]

you can't explain it because it makes no sense at all. NONE. they make a plane disappear but don't use it to hit the pentagon. they use a small plane in broad daylight where god and everyone can see it and one japanese tourist with a camcorder would fuck them over. it makes no sense. then they have guys run onto the lawn and spread some debris because they knew a small plane wouldn't make enough but forget to add a lot because, um, well, it fits the conspiracy theory. whatever.

Whatever? That's speculating. I'm not doing that.

In any case, you all raise very excellent, plausible points.

Look, I'm not advocating any particular conspiracy theory, so don't invest too much in trying to convince me. I'm considering, and have considered, every point. We're talking about some of them, is all. So jumping up and down, calling me a conspiracy nut and/or a retarded idiot, will be unfounded and unecessary, OK? Just saying.

Why might "they" have confiscated, destroyed and/not released other records?

I'd never read about that aspect of the WotW scare. Only that some people believed the Martians might have been "in cahoots" with Hitler. Interesting.

[Andrew Mayer]

Grr! Arrgh! Crazy! Gnash Gnash! No reality!



Hmmm! Yes! My considered opinion... Link! Link! Regnery book!

[mtkafka]

Come to think of it... the official story itself is a conspiracy. I mean have they ever made a thorough investigation on the who what where when and why of Osama and his cohorts? Has any credible terrorist in this conspiracy ever been reasonably prosecuted? Even the JFK, RFK and MLK assasinations had reasonable truths in that there was investigation into real men who could have actually committed the murders... but with 9-11 its all so shady...

The sad thing is the evidence and investigation has already been compromised... the steel was destroyed, the flight recorders lost or conisdered too hot and National Security, nobody really investigated the Saudi's that were airlifted out of America days after 9-11... and we already know of the countless warnings and the oblivious responses to actually respond to an attack. And then you have the admission of a NORAD drill of a WTC attack on the SAME DAY!

Then there's little tidbits of info about how on june 2001 Rumsfeld was essentially given direct authority of shooting down hijakced aircraft over the joint chiefs of staff and norad... and then his freudian slip last year...


"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

... something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

etc

[Menzo]

Put the tin foil hat down and back away from the keyboard...slowly...

Or perhaps they really are watching you. Come to think of it, nobody has investigated ME at all. Perhaps I'm a conspiracy against America as well.

[Brian Koontz]

What do conspiracists and the Neocons have in common?

They both live in an imagined reality.

Another thing they have in common is that their identity is built out of their fear. The conspiracists fear hierarchical deception so much that every unsavory event is seen in that light. Its an attitude placed upon a situation. Its "daddy's fault" over and over again. The Neocons fear a lost, empty, and decaying People. These hopeless children must be led, must be dominated, into becoming something worthwhile.

Its resentful populism vs. patronizing fascism. Its the Bad Dad vs. the Bad Children.

Sometimes in war you want BOTH sides to lose. Or better yet, they could exit the battlefield and make way for some decent warriors.

Now that they are on the same battlefield, does anyone have a nuke we could carefully place?

Bad War. Two sides of a very low-grade coin.

[red guy]

The only conspiracy theory worth mentioning is, that Saddam Hussein supposedly was in league with Al Qa'eda, and would eventually supply them with WMD. Whoever concocted that nonsense should be committed.

Outside the Pentagon, the debris was littered with luggage. No issue there.

The coverup, in my opinion, is multiple:
- Denying the communication errors between FAA and Norad - they wasted half an hour that could have made the difference. I think this one is benign: human error, covered in shame.
- why were the two airforce squadrons based on an airbase just outside Washington (Langley perhaps? I forgot) not used? Soon after 9/11, a website was scrubbed that contained text boasting that "these squadrons are always at the highest state of alertness". This question was never answered, to my knowledge. It's weird.
- The Pennsylvania plane: was the Jessica Lynch-style story about passengers fighting their captors and downing the plane made up? There was a multitude of flight schedules for the fighter planes that supposedly arrived too late. It sounds like propaganda to me. If fighter planes did shoot down this airliner, they did their (horrible) duty, honorably. I'm not convinced that they didn't.
- The Administration's incompetence. After their White House takeover, they did nothing. After the 8/9 security briefing ("Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S."), they did nothing. On 9/11, they had their eyes firmly off the ball. Denials were issued sounding like "if we had known planes would strike the WTC at 8:46 and 9:03, we would have stopped them." Meaning: We did not know everything, so we did nothing. All they did was, they reclassified the 8/9 memo.

But it wasn't a coverup for a crime, it was all a coverup for incompetence. Until that day, I'd have guessed NORAD would be able to stop such an attack.

[Bren]

A little more jet fuel for the fire:

Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

[Linoleum]

The only conspiracy theory worth mentioning is, that Saddam Hussein supposedly was in league with Al Qa'eda, and would eventually supply them with WMD. Whoever concocted that nonsense should be committed.

It's good to know you can resell straightjackets on eBay, you know, just in case (http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/06/iraq-and-al-qaeda.html).

[Linoleum]

A little more jet fuel for the fire:

Ack, double post, ah well.

I'm a little amused at you quoting from Lew Rockwell and UPI of all places. Do I have to put up with links from the moonies and crackpot Jesusland libertarians? :lol:

[Brian Rucker]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406300014

Care for some lithium to go with your new ensemble?

[Bren]

I'm a little amused at you quoting from Lew Rockwell and UPI of all places. Do I have to put up with links from the moonies and crackpot Jesusland libertarians? :lol:

Strange bedfellows, huh? They just happened to have the best archive of Reynolds' articles is all. I wore gloves and held my nose as I linked. :)

[russellmz00]

A little more jet fuel for the fire:

[i]Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

i wouldn't trust bush's former chief economist for technical expertise on the local economics of my game/dvd trades let alone civil engineering.

btw, he does have some sort of civil engineering degree like most of the people who say the towers fell due to planes ramming them at hundreds of miles per hour combined with jet fuel weakening the steel beams? no? then he can join the "talking out of ass" pile of "experts".