Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Other cases => Topic started by: Roch on August 25, 2014, 02:45:AM
-
Not sure if this has been done on here before...There seems to be a number of Americans seriously questioning the official version of events. Hundreds of architects and scientists have formed a group questioning the scientific facts relating to the collapse of tower 1, tower 2 and tower 7. Tower 7 wasn't hit by any plane, yet collapsed in a simlar manner to the two main towers, which broadcast footage showed had appeared to be hit by planes. Some of the people commenting on this have claimed that there was Israeli / Mossad / American Neo-Con involvement in this attack and also, other notable 'terrorist' attacks.
-
Not sure if this has been done on here before...There seems to be a number of Americans seriously questioning the official version of events. Hundreds of architects and scientists have formed a group questioning the scientific facts relating to the collapse of tower 1, tower 2 and tower 7. Tower 7 wasn't hit by any plane, yet collapsed in a simlar manner to the two main towers, which broadcast footage showed had appeared to be hit by planes. Some of the people commenting on this have claimed that there was Israeli / Mossad / American Neo-Con involvement in this attack and also, other notable 'terrorist' attacks.
I think that is bonkers. :-\
What do you think?
-
Morning harters have not got a clue what Roch is talking about :'( way over my head ;D
-
Morning harters have not got a clue what Roch is talking about :'( way over my head ;D
Morning Susan, I'm sure you are not alone. ;)
-
This was a theory being bandied around.One in which I don't believe,sorry Roch.
-
i have heard loads of theory's about this some of them were credible to start with but they just got daft and after as they went on.
-
Not sure if this has been done on here before...There seems to be a number of Americans seriously questioning the official version of events. Hundreds of architects and scientists have formed a group questioning the scientific facts relating to the collapse of tower 1, tower 2 and tower 7. Tower 7 wasn't hit by any plane, yet collapsed in a simlar manner to the two main towers, which broadcast footage showed had appeared to be hit by planes. Some of the people commenting on this have claimed that there was Israeli / Mossad / American Neo-Con involvement in this attack and also, other notable 'terrorist' attacks.
There is much about the official story which is questionable Roch and I don't believe that 9/11 could have been pulled off without state/secret service involvement.
To believe the official version is to believe the biggest "conspiracy theory" of all.
-
i find it hard to belive the amercan goverment did it themselves i could believe they knew and let it happen though.
-
I think that is bonkers. :-\
What do you think?
I think the focus on who was or was not responsible should be secondary to the science and engineering debate. If people feel assured and comfortable with the official version of who was responsible, they could still explore the scientific debate from that standpoint.
This is the Architects & Engineers site:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html
Judy Wood's work is also interesting:
http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/
Cant access her official sites for some reason.
-
I've watched several conspiracy programmes along with them being debunker in the same way I've watched conspiracy theories about the assassination of JFK, the death of Princess Diana and I can't say I', swayed by any of them. People (some of them) seem to love a good conspiracy.
The only thing that struck me was a programme regarding the building of the towers and how well they faired despite being 'planed' and the fact they stood long enough for some people to escape, especially Brian Clarke and the rescue of Stanley Praimnath.
The only one true conspiracy regarding 9/11 is Tania Head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tania_Head
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcKIp-PR4XM
-
I think the focus on who was or was not responsible should be secondary to the science and engineering debate. If people feel assured and comfortable with the official version of who was responsible, they could still explore the scientific debate from that standpoint.
This is the Architects & Engineers site:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html
Judy Wood's work is also interesting:
http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/
Cant access her official sites for some reason.
Yeah but what do you think? :D
As per my last PM, I don't have any particular knowledge of the processes involved in the collapse of the buildings at the WTC.
We do have regulations over here concerning 'Disproportionate Collapse' which relate to the ability of a building to stay standing following the damage or removal of key structural beams/columns. This came about following the collapse of Ronan Point in London in the 60's (due to a gas explosion I think, can't quite remember :-\).
I've seen a few different videos regarding the WTC collapses, those towing the official line refer to 'Progressive Collapse' which involves the damage to a structural element which in turn causes excessive loads to other structural elements, making them then fail, the process repeating until the building can no longer stand.
There are then a whole bunch of other videos which offer up the various conspiracy theories, I recall seeing one which claimed that there was the remains of a US warhead visible in the debris at the Pentagon. Another suggested the plane which crashed before allegedly reaching its target was actually shot down.
One of the more recent videos that I've seen concentrated on the WTC7 building and suggested it had been destroyed by controlled demolition.
I haven't really spent too much time looking at the conspiracy theories, but to me personally, it all sounds a bit far fetched.
I find the whole disaster quite interesting (as many people do), it's one of those events that I can instantly remember where I was, watching it on the news at a golf club, thinking a plane had accidentally collided with the towers, when the second plane then struck live on the news report.
I think it's an event which sparks the imagination and lends itself to conspiracy theorists very easily.
-
Yeah but what do you think? :D
As per my last PM, I don't have any particular knowledge of the processes involved in the collapse of the buildings at the WTC.
We do have regulations over here concerning 'Disproportionate Collapse' which relate to the ability of a building to stay standing following the damage or removal of key structural beams/columns. This came about following the collapse of Ronan Point in London in the 60's (due to a gas explosion I think, can't quite remember :-\).
I've seen a few different videos regarding the WTC collapses, those towing the official line refer to 'Progressive Collapse' which involves the damage to a structural element which in turn causes excessive loads to other structural elements, making them then fail, the process repeating until the building can no longer stand.
There are then a whole bunch of other videos which offer up the various conspiracy theories, I recall seeing one which claimed that there was the remains of a US warhead visible in the debris at the Pentagon. Another suggested the plane which crashed before allegedly reaching its target was actually shot down.
One of the more recent videos that I've seen concentrated on the WTC7 building and suggested it had been destroyed by controlled demolition.
I haven't really spent too much time looking at the conspiracy theories, but to me personally, it all sounds a bit far fetched.
I find the whole disaster quite interesting (as many people do), it's one of those events that I can instantly remember where I was, watching it on the news at a golf club, thinking a plane had accidentally collided with the towers, when the second plane then struck live on the news report.
I think it's an event which sparks the imagination and lends itself to conspiracy theorists very easily.
I feel that one side may have presented an accepted 'conspiracy theory' already. I certainly didn't question the official version. I now worry that there's far more to the incident than the official version I accepted. I feel less confident in my previous assumption that both towers collapsed as a direct result of being hit by planes. I was not previously aware that other WTC structures had collapsed on the same site, without being hit by planes. I no longer feel UK/USA Govt can be trusted to tell the truth. I look at the WMD fiasco prior to the Iraq war and I no longer maintain the previous levels of acceptance I once casually adhered to.
-
I feel that one side may have presented an accepted 'conspiracy theory' already. I certainly didn't question the official version. I now worry that there's far more to the incident than the official version I accepted. I feel less confident in my previous assumption that both towers collapsed as a direct result of being hit by planes. I was not previously aware that other WTC structures had collapsed on the same site, without being hit by planes. I no longer feel UK/USA Govt can be trusted to tell the truth. I look at the WMD fiasco prior to the Iraq war and I no longer maintain the previous levels of acceptance I once casually adhered to.
Wow, that's a bit deep Roch. :-\
-
Wow, that's a bit deep Roch. :-\
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound deep. I've just become extremely sceptical, compared with how I used to be.
-
I can even remember what I had for my tea when that tragedy unfolded,because after being glued to the TV,I could no longer eat it. The time on the clock was 5.10pm.
Son-in-law turned the TV on and calmly said " look at this ". It shocked me to the core.
-
With the passage of time the 9/11 debate will probably go the same way as the Kennedy assassination, and the moon landings. People with opposing theories will just agree to disagree, with the heat having been taken out of the argument.
This is my favorite 9/11 site. I believe the live footage we saw on TV was probably faked.
At the 3min. 30second mark things start to become revealing.
http://www.septemberclues.info/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gORu-68SHpE
Another reason I feel sorry for people like Jeremy, is that they are unable to make a truly informed opinion over historical events that happened in their life time.
-
why i cant really understand people outside the usa are interested in weather there was a conspiracy to kill an American president or not.
i can understand why its an interesting topic for Americans but why does anyone else give a toss.
-
I feel that one side may have presented an accepted 'conspiracy theory' already. I certainly didn't question the official version. I now worry that there's far more to the incident than the official version I accepted. I feel less confident in my previous assumption that both towers collapsed as a direct result of being hit by planes. I was not previously aware that other WTC structures had collapsed on the same site, without being hit by planes. I no longer feel UK/USA Govt can be trusted to tell the truth. I look at the WMD fiasco prior to the Iraq war and I no longer maintain the previous levels of acceptance I once casually adhered to.
Easier to believe when you consider the alternative is that a demolition team fitted the building head -to-toe with explosives before the event without any of 50,000 workers noticing them.
-
Easier to believe when you consider the alternative is that a demolition team fitted the building head -to-toe with explosives before the event without any of 50,000 workers noticing them.
If any demolition devices (common or otherwise) had been fitted, I doubt the work would have been carried out by operatives wearing 'TNT' logo workwear. Or ACME...
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSptSXzi50ThnH74a-Q7nPcCwHv2gvni82ds268626uGCdcRaXPGQqC5Q)
-
With the passage of time the 9/11 debate will probably go the same way as the Kennedy assassination, and the moon landings. People with opposing theories will just agree to disagree, with the heat having been taken out of the argument.
This is my favorite 9/11 site. I believe the live footage we saw on TV was probably faked.
At the 3min. 30second mark things start to become revealing.
http://www.septemberclues.info/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gORu-68SHpE
Another reason I feel sorry for people like Jeremy, is that they are unable to make a truly informed opinion over historical events that happened in their life time.
The footage of the second plane hitting the 2nd tower is very strange. It's supposed to be an aluminium plane cutting straight through concrete and steel columns. The plane does not decelerate upon hitting the tower. According to the footage it retains the exact same velocity both prior to and after hitting the tower.
I'm not sure what to make of the ball.
-
it is interesting information on the video clips - but it is more insinuating a missile attack rather than a plane - but if it was a terrorist attack not quite sure why that would make a difference how it was done?
-
i find it very hard to believe they put all those explosives in the building and nobody who worked there would ask any questions as to what they were doing.
someone who worked there would of probably found them before they went off.
-
it is interesting information on the video clips - but it is more insinuating a missile attack rather than a plane - but if it was a terrorist attack not quite sure why that would make a difference how it was done?
Which video are you referring to, is it the 'September clues' video? I think the video is claiming that 'terrorists' were not involved, other than in the form of having been made stooges.
I find it very hard to believe they put all those explosives in the building and nobody who worked there would ask any questions as to what they were doing.
Someone who worked there would of probably found them before they went off.
Apparently there are claims that nano-thermite is present in the debris. Apparently this is an explosive which produces white smoke and can turn steel molten. Firefighters noted that molten steel was present at the site. I've seen footage of white smoke also.
This site http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/ argues that the presence of nano-thermite is a 'fig leaf' and that presence of high levels of barium and strontium in various but correlating amounts indicate that nuclear fission occurred at the World Trade Centre. They cite other factors and wrote an open letter attempting to repudiate another scientist. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/13/open-letter-to-steve-jones-hard-evidence-supports-the-911-mini-nuke-hypothesis/
I'm certainly no scientist. I can remember making copper sulphate solution at school but struggled with identifying hydrocarbons
-
i dont have a clue weather true or not but i still find it hard to believe explosives were placed in there with nobody noticing.
i mean how many people worked in that building.
-
i dont have a clue weather true or not but i still find it hard to believe explosives were placed in there with nobody noticing.
I mean how may people worked in that building.
Well I suppose the easiest way to carry out such preperation would be under the guise of maintenance work?
-
Survivors that worked at the wtc talked of maintenance work being carried out in the lift shafts prior to the collapse.
-
Survivors that worked at the wtc talked of maintenance work being carried out in the lift shafts prior to the collapse.
I also read that somewhere. I'm still a bit freaked out by the fake footage of the second plane.
-
To believe the official version is to believe the biggest "conspiracy theory" of all.
I agree. OBL denied having been involved in the attacks. The Taliban actually offered to hand him over, if the USA provided evidence of his involvement!
-
This woman was arrested and imprisoned under the Patriot Act in USA. She was eventually released but declared mad in the mainstream media. In this video she tells her own personal story, from the election of GW Bush, to 9/11, to arrest and trial. She alleges that right from the start, the Bush administration threatened Iraq with war. Also, that despite the Iraqi intelligence services and governement desperately tried to cooperate with US demands, they (the Iraqis) claimed that the only intelligence circulating about a potential attack on the world trade centre, emanated from the Americans themselves. She discusses the sanctions on Iraq and it's an eye opener. Also takes questions from the audience.
-
what is hard to explian is the complete falure of amercan air defences that day.
-
I'm watching that now on channel 14. 9/11 The Miracle of Stairway B.
-
it is interesting information on the video clips - but it is more insinuating a missile attack rather than a plane - but if it was a terrorist attack not quite sure why that would make a difference how it was done?
Simon Shack the author/ maker of September Clues has since revised some of the content of that video.
Now believing that no missile hit the towers, and that all the footage was CGI. Including the Manhattan landscape itself.
-
Simon Shack the author/ maker of September Clues has since revised some of the content of that video.
Now believing that no missile hit the towers, and that all the footage was CGI. Including the Manhattan landscape itself.
There's a lot to take in and consider. Truely there is. The footage of the second plane hitting the towers needs to be viewed by everyone. It is being claimed that it defies some of the physics in relation to Newton's Third Law. Some of the footage of this crash appears to be crude animation.
-
what is hard to explian is the complete falure of amercan air defences that day.
As if the USA would not have contingency plans in place for the Pentagon, Whitehouse and Twin Towers etc being attacked from the air ?
It is claimed by CIA whistleblower Susan Lindauer that in the run-up to 9/11 they demanded intelligence from Iraq regarding a potential attack from the air on the WTC and even went so far as to threaten Iraq with war, if such an attack later took place and Iraq had not provided them with relevant intelligence.
In light of this, how should a lack of air defences on the day be interpreted?
-
I find it hard to belive the american goverment did it themselves... I could believe they knew and let it happen though.
That's an interesting perspective. What if in January 1995, they discovered the blueprint for a similar concept, while pursuing the terrorist behind the 1993 world trade center bombing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot
That gives the USA 6 years and 8 months to develop their own plan.
-
And the plan was to fake the whole event, via our TV sets.
As Roch has pointed out the second strike was clearly faked. This would mean that no aircraft impacted the towers, which then leads to the question. What happened to the passengers ?
The passenger manifests were made up using fake names, with a few minor celebrity names such as Berry Berensen & Barbara Olsen thrown in to create some realism.
Some real people may have lent their names to the hoax, who knows what networks these people are actually involved with.
Apply the same methodology to the WTC. A computor program is set up to generate a few thousand fake names, complete with back ground history and fake obituaries.
I can imagine some government insiders becoming involved if they thought there were to be no victims.
We then come to the collapse footage of the WTC itself.
The close up footage of the Towers collapsing wasn't aired on television until some time after the towers had actually collapsed .
At the time of the collapse the TV networks were busily focusing on the Pentagon, the only footage of the Towers shown was from a distance with them engulfed in smoke.
This would be in line with what New Yorkers would have seen of the Towers at the time of collapse. The WTC engulfed in smoke, whilst the demolition/ detonation process was carried out.
Both Towers more than likely demolished simultaneously, the time taken likely to be the same time frame which elapsed (20 or so minutes) between WTC2 then WTC1 to have collapsed, according to what was shown on TV.
After the Towers collapse, our TV screens are bombarded with the close up CGI footage of the Towers collapsing in 10 seconds from the top down, an impossibility.
This was the only way the public could be hopefully fooled into thinking that the towers, had collapsed as a result of being hit high up by 2 large aircraft.
With the aircraft parts no where to be seen, every thing happening in just over the blink of an eye.
-
Morning hanyman read your post with interest. I don't understand this at all what would be the point of faking all of this I have never taken much of an interest in it but after Roch and yourself posting I want to know more of why it would be faked. Thanks for your patience in advance ;D
-
Susan,Bush wanted an excuse to go to war with Iraq. It is all about oil. Same with Afghanistan and now Syria
-
Hello tyler thanks for that what kind of a world are we living in thankful to be stuck up in The Highlands with the sheep ;D XXX
-
The same question I keep asking myself about the missing Malaysian airline----------where are the passengers ? Over 100 landing strips in and around the area where contact was lost.
-
Susan,Bush wanted an excuse to go to war with Iraq. It is all about oil. Same with Afghanistan and now Syria
Added to this the WTC Towers were a white elephant, possibly riddled with asbestos problems and maybe never fully completed, except for the observation decks and eateries on the top floors.
It's possible that they were never tenanted, except for a few floors occupied by the Port Authority.
-
The second plane looked as though it was " on strings ",a puppet theatre shot. It looked weird.
-
Susan,Bush wanted an excuse to go to war with Iraq. It is all about oil. Same with Afghanistan and now Syria
So said Billy Bragg. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjAhlh23zPM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjAhlh23zPM)
-
Havent had a chance to reply to some of the posts on this thread but hope to do so soon.
Does anybody know about World Trade Centre building 7 collapsing on 9/11? It was not hit by any planes. WTC7 was on the same complex as twin towers.
The blurb underneath the video gives some info:
This video tracks the motion of the NW corner of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001. The building was in freefall for a period of ~2.5 seconds. This means it was falling through itself for over 100 feet with zero resistance, an impossibility in any natural scenario. This period of freefall is solid evidence that explosives had to be used to bring the building down. In the final draft for public comment (August 2008) NIST denied that WTC7 fell at freefall. In the final report in Nov 2008 they reversed themselves and admitted freefall, but denied its obvious significance.
-----
[The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a WTC7 Measurement FAQ page: http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measu... . I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.]
My new DVD: "9/11 Analysis" is now out. Go to http://www.911speakout.org
-
This is an architects & engineers video regarding World Trade Centre 7. The 47 storey building that collapsed on 9/11 in under 7 seconds. The building was in the same complex as the twin towers.
-
::) If WTC7 came down in a similar manner to WTC 1 & 2 - is that evidence in itself that the entire incident was staged?
-
Why does WTC6 have a massive crater? It's as if something scooped out the inside of the entire building? How could that happen? WTC6 was an 8 storey building.
(http://www.attivissimo.net/11settembre/wtc7/wtc7_vista_verticale_danni.jpg)
-
::) If WTC7 came down in a similar manner to WTC 1 & 2 - is that evidence in itself that the entire incident was staged?
I found building 7 collapsing like the towers quite odd. From memory this building had a fire contained, on the 11th floor yet the structure collapsed very much like the towers did. Could this have been intense heat from the towers? I do recall that the whole building was not ablaze. Why it fell like it did remains a mystery...I think scientists from all over the have come up with different theories... :-\
-
This is an architects & engineers video regarding World Trade Centre 7. The 47 storey building that collapsed on 9/11 in under 7 seconds. The building was in the same complex as the twin towers.
<iframe width=\"560\" height=\"315\" src=\"//www.youtube.com/embed/hZEvA8BCoBw\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The problem with these Architects & Engineers is that they are analysing faked footage, that's why they can't work out the technology behind it all.
-
The problem with these Architects & Engineers is that they are analysing faked footage, that's why they can't work out the technology behind it all.
That is my opinion also.
-
The problem with these Architects & Engineers is that they are analysing faked footage, that's why they can't work out the technology behind it all.
That is my opinion also.
But are you two saying the same thing or are you saying different things? Hope this question makes sense.
-
But are you two saying the same thing or are you saying different things? Hope this question makes sense.
Oh, that's put me on the spot. I'm not sure to be honest.
I don't necessarily know whether things have been maliciously faked, but perhaps people have been reflecting on erroneous information and therefore arrived at conclusions which do not reflect reality.
The forces involved in the collapse of the two main towers must have been phenomenal, I guess I'm sort of surprised that the forces did not disrupt the ground and cause the foundations of other (more than it did) nearby buildings to collapse.
WTC6, which may appear to have a crater in the middle, 'could' simply be due to damage below the building, perhaps there was a tube station below it, or many sub-ground level floors.
From a personal point of view. I could go along with the authorities being aware of a terrorist attack and simply allowing it to take place, however I find the claims of the US actually carrying out the attacks, be it by setting their own explosives or firing missiles at the buildings etc, to be ridiculously absurd.
The engineers may well have an insight into the forces involved and be able to offer expert opinion on that basis, however Architects are not qualified in that field, or at least most of them are not. So if Architects are offering an opinion based on a subject they are not qualified in, then the actual weight of their opinions should be considered accordingly.
Plus most Architects tend to be a little odd, in one respect or another.
I will add the caveat in, that I haven't studied the 'claims' in any way and the above is just my 'off the cuff' opinion.
I don't know if Handyman thinks along the same lines, or not.
-
It was more like a" Fred Dibnah " project. He was good at avoiding other buildings with his demolition.
-
i think they knew about it and let it happen.
the idea they did themselves is a bit far fetched.
but then so is saying they couldn't of stopped it.
-
What I am saying is that the 9/11 image pool consists of fake footage, so what we saw on TV that day does not reflect what actually happened.
3 large buildings collapsed but not by the way in which we saw it on TV.
-
What I am saying is that the 9/11 image pool consists of fake footage, so what we saw on TV that day does not reflect what actually happened.
3 large buildings collapsed but not by the way in which we saw it on TV.
So there we go Roch.
You are quite correct, we are not saying the same thing at all. :D
-
I found building 7 collapsing like the towers quite odd. From memory this building had a fire contained, on the 11th floor yet the structure collapsed very much like the towers did. Could this have been intense heat from the towers? I do recall that the whole building was not ablaze. Why it fell like it did remains a mystery...I think scientists from all over the have come up with different theories... :-\
The fire sprinklers in the building were not workign and the firemen coudl not get enough pressure to put the fire out. That resulted in it burning a very long time to the point where they could no longer do anything to save it and left the building to ruin. All of these buildings have deep basements below them that is the hole you see. It took far longer to clean through the debris of the Twin Towers because on top of there being much more debris they were looking for human remains. So that is why in that particular photo you can't see inside the footprints yet.
9/11 conspiracy claims are a hoax. It involves so many different lies and variations that it would take me a long time to recount them all. On the old History Channel Message Board there was a lot devoted to combatting the nonsense of those posting about it and other conspircy claims regarding the US government. A lot of the claim were spread by instant message and emails. So many times I got stuck in email chains over such nonsense including claims that wings can't break off a plane the way they did when the Pentagon was hit and that the Pentagon debris was actually missible debris and that the planes were simply shot down.
The claims are all endless and invariably totally lacking in scientific logic including the claim the towers fell at a rate faster than woudl happen in a vacuum which is impossible.
I honestly don't understand what people get from making up hoaxes but some seem to get heir rocks off on fooling others with such nonsense.
Some have political motivations they are to blame Israel and fuel distrust of the government by malcontents but most of those who latch onto the nonsense seem to just be people who have issues.
One guy I worked with was a really nice guy but he believed every wacko theory you put in front of him from Area 51 housing aliens to 9/11 being a US operation. He was paranoid as well thinking that he was in danger from anyone and everyone. Oddly enough he was bright enough to do his job well so not dumb. He was smart enough that you would have expected him to realize how wacky his claims were.
These claims are all the more silly since Al Qaeda took responsibility already by the time many of them were created.
-
I don't agree with conspiracy theories about 9/11, on this occasion, I agree with scipio. :o
-
The fire sprinklers in the building were not workign and the firemen coudl not get enough pressure to put the fire out. That resulted in it burning a very long time to the point where they could no longer do anything to save it and left the building to ruin. All of these buildings have deep basements below them that is the hole you see. It took far longer to clean through the debris of the Twin Towers because on top of there being much more debris they were looking for human remains. So that is why in that particular photo you can't see inside the footprints yet.
9/11 conspiracy claims are a hoax. It involves so many different lies and variations that it would take me a long time to recount them all. On the old History Channel Message Board there was a lot devoted to combatting the nonsense of those posting about it and other conspircy claims regarding the US government. A lot of the claim were spread by instant message and emails. So many times I got stuck in email chains over such nonsense including claims that wings can't break off a plane the way they did when the Pentagon was hit and that the Pentagon debris was actually missible debris and that the planes were simply shot down.
The claims are all endless and invariably totally lacking in scientific logic including the claim the towers fell at a rate faster than woudl happen in a vacuum which is impossible.
I honestly don't understand what people get from making up hoaxes but some seem to get heir rocks off on fooling others with such nonsense.
Some have political motivations they are to blame Israel and fuel distrust of the government by malcontents but most of those who latch onto the nonsense seem to just be people who have issues.
One guy I worked with was a really nice guy but he believed every wacko theory you put in front of him from Area 51 housing aliens to 9/11 being a US operation. He was paranoid as well thinking that he was in danger from anyone and everyone. Oddly enough he was bright enough to do his job well so not dumb. He was smart enough that you would have expected him to realize how wacky his claims were.
These claims are all the more silly since Al Qaeda took responsibility already by the time many of them were created.
I guess the world is full of conspiracy theories since time began. History unless perfectly documented is a good example in my opinion. Past historians all over the world will differ, we are no different today I suppose. There will always be those that will follow their own beliefs and have their reasons for doing so, I suppose.
At one time I honestly believed there was incorrect information following the world trade disaster. But, when you see the heart broken families of those that perished its becomes hard to believe anything sinster happened other than a terrorist attack on innocent lives.
I am still confused as to how those building fell the way they did and its remarkable that they fell like a controlled explosion was the cause, and not due to the fact that a plane had hit them. Its just not criket that that the USA government was involved is it? :) :) :)
-
I don't agree with conspiracy theories about 9/11, on this occasion, I agree with scipio. :o
Me too Maggie. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't agree with conspiracy theories about 9/11, on this occasion, I agree with scipio. :o
That makes two of us.
-
i just dont belive they could of done all that without anybody noticing.
i mean this is newyork were talking about is not like theirs not going to be people passing by the building that's without counting the people inside. they couldn't of done all thats claimed with nobody seeing anything.
-
Some interesting replies on here which I had hoped to try and address the other day. But low and behold, as I sent my carefully drafted post, my internet connection went down. >:(
-
The conspiracy theories are simply a ploy to deny al-Qaeda their moment of glory.
-
The conspiracy theories are simply a ploy to deny al-Qaeda their moment of glory.
19 Islamic men training as pilots right under the noses of the American security services; successfully carrying out attacks with passenger jets, without any hindrence from the defence services of a country with the biggest defence budget in the world; steel and concrete mega-structures tumbling down, even ones not hit by planes. I think it's safe to say that the greatest 9/11 conspiracy is the official version.
Go look at the budget the Bush Administration allowed for the official enquiry and then compare that figure to the figure that Susan Lindauer's CIA handler was paid to keep schtum. :-X
-
Oh, that's put me on the spot. I'm not sure to be honest.
I don't necessarily know whether things have been maliciously faked, but perhaps people have been reflecting on erroneous information and therefore arrived at conclusions which do not reflect reality.
The forces involved in the collapse of the two main towers must have been phenomenal, I guess I'm sort of surprised that the forces did not disrupt the ground and cause the foundations of other (more than it did) nearby buildings to collapse.
WTC6, which may appear to have a crater in the middle, 'could' simply be due to damage below the building, perhaps there was a tube station below it, or many sub-ground level floors.
From a personal point of view. I could go along with the authorities being aware of a terrorist attack and simply allowing it to take place, however I find the claims of the US actually carrying out the attacks, be it by setting their own explosives or firing missiles at the buildings etc, to be ridiculously absurd.
The engineers may well have an insight into the forces involved and be able to offer expert opinion on that basis, however Architects are not qualified in that field, or at least most of them are not. So if Architects are offering an opinion based on a subject they are not qualified in, then the actual weight of their opinions should be considered accordingly.
Plus most Architects tend to be a little odd, in one respect or another.
I will add the caveat in, that I haven't studied the 'claims' in any way and the above is just my 'off the cuff' opinion.
I don't know if Handyman thinks along the same lines, or not.
Thanks for your reply. There are numerous images of WTC6 on the internet. What I've read is that the inside of building that's missing, the crater, goes down to the lower basement. So everything from the lower basement upwards is missing.
Regarding the footage in general, I'd like to make a point / ask a question about that.
-
19 Islamic men training as pilots right under the noses of the American security services; successfully carrying out attacks with passenger jets, without any hindrence from the defence services of a country with the biggest defence budget in the world; steel and concrete mega-structures tumbling down, even ones not hit by planes. I think it's safe to say that the greatest 9/11 conspiracy is the official version.
Go look at the budget the Bush Administration allowed for the official enquiry and then compare that figure to the figure that Susan Lindauer's CIA handler was paid to keep schtum. :-X
David and Goliath all over again.
-
Thanks for your reply. There are numerous images of WTC6 on the internet. What I've read is that the inside of building that's missing, the crater, goes down to the lower basement. So everything from the lower basement upwards is missing.
Regarding the footage in general, I'd like to make a point / ask a question about that.
Hi Roch
I think your PM was just to point me here to your post, is that right?
Sure, ask a question, I'll comment/answer if I can.
-
Hi Roch
I think your PM was just to point me here to your post, is that right?
Sure, ask a question, I'll comment/answer if I can.
I might pm you first. It will be over the weekend as I am doing some night-shifts and have PC access.
But before that, am I right in thinking that WTC6's floors could have (possibly) collapsed in to any kind of underground chamber that lay directly below the building, for example subway tunnels and that the top of the rubble pile could be the lower basement? That is how I read your opinion on WTC6.
-
I might pm you first. It will be over the weekend as I am doing some night-shifts and have PC access.
But before that, am I right in thinking that WTC6's floors could have (possibly) collapsed in to any kind of underground chamber that lay directly below the building, for example subway tunnels and that the top of the rubble pile could be the lower basement? That is how I read your opinion on WTC6.
If there actually was any underground structure that is, I recall reading that there was just one sub-level, but I don't know how accurate that is. :-\
The floors have clearly collapsed in some manner, leaving a good deal of the external shell standing. The floors and internal partitions would likely have been light weight and non-loadbearing construction, so when they have all collapsed, perhaps there is simply not as much debris as you might think. The building was effectively hollow when it was still standing.
I haven't really looked at it in much (or any) detail, just a cursory glance.
Feel free to Pm me if you like.
-
If there actually was any underground structure that is, I recall reading that there was just one sub-level, but I don't know how accurate that is. :-\
The floors have clearly collapsed in some manner, leaving a good deal of the external shell standing. The floors and internal partitions would likely have been light weight and non-loadbearing construction, so when they have all collapsed, perhaps there is simply not as much debris as you might think. The building was effectively hollow when it was still standing.
I haven't really looked at it in much (or any) detail, just a cursory glance.
Feel free to Pm me if you like.
Thanks, I'll mull this over. Be back soon.
-
http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm
-
Is anyone aware of any protestations or denials, made by any of the main US media corporations with regards to tampering of their 9/11 broadcast footage, post broadcast?
There seems to be a lot of people disseminating and examining alleged original broadcast footage, frame by frame. Hence many of the claims being made that the footage from the day was altered and/or faked prior to broadcast.
The alternative argument to the above would seem to be that the footage was tampered with after having been originally broadcast, rendering many of these subsequent claims false.
It would make sense that any discerning researcher would want to obtain the original broadcast footage, as opposed to examining footage from any source that may have been tampered with post broadcast?
If claims were being made by researchers who based their claims on adulterated footage, not from the original sources, then wouldn't those original sources themselves be able to challenge and dismiss the claims being made, simply by reference to the actual original broadcast footage?
-
http://youtu.be/c4d2Mt2a6iM
Can't really argue with the law of physics!
Gobsmacked at seeing the nose of the 'plane' coming out the other side of the building.
-
http://youtu.be/c4d2Mt2a6iM
Can't really argue with the law of physics!
Gobsmacked at seeing the nose of the 'plane' coming out the other side of the building.
Tyler I was watching it on TV while it was happening. Too many people were filming it and watching it as it happened. Of course it was a plane. The people on the planes were phoning their loved ones as they wree highjacked. There was a well know TV reporter who died in the crash and who phoned her husband just before the crash. The so called explosions from within the buildings just before they collapsed was probably girders breaking as the weight of the top of the buildings increased. The fire was so intense that it burned away that section of the building that the bottom half of it could not hold the weight of the top.
-
Hi Grahame. I respect your opinions but I feel I have read enough and seen enough now to not be of the same opinion.
-
Tyler I was watching it on TV while it was happening. Too many people were filming it and watching it as it happened. Of course it was a plane. The people on the planes were phoning their loved ones as they wree highjacked. There was a well know TV reporter who died in the crash and who phoned her husband just before the crash. The so called explosions from within the buildings just before they collapsed was probably girders breaking as the weight of the top of the buildings increased. The fire was so intense that it burned away that section of the building that the bottom half of it could not hold the weight of the top.
It's the way I saw it too and remember vividly. It was stomach-churning like the worst horror film.
-
Hi Grahame. I respect your opinions but I feel I have read enough and seen enough now to not be of the same opinion.
Did you watch it on TV Tyler?
-
I think we all watched it on TV. However the TV was American mainstream media coverage. What seems to be being suggested is that the mainstream media in America is in the pocket of other powers that be. I do remember that previously it has been claimed that their mainstream media is very insular / pro USA, not very cutting edge in terms of reportage. Since I dont live there, I dont know how accurate that claim is.
-
I think we all watched it on TV. However the TV was American mainstream media coverage. What seems to be being suggested is that the mainstream media in America is in the pocket of other powers that be. I do remember that previously it has been claimed that their mainstream media is very insular / pro USA, not very cutting edge in terms of reportage. Since I dont live there, I dont know how accurate that claim is.
Well what technology could manufacture an image of what looked like a plane when it hit the second tower whilst we were all watching it at the time? Are you saying that there was enough time delay to allow them to quickly dub in an image of a plane from photoshop?
There were far too many eye winesses who were actually there who said it was a plane. They can't all be in the governments pockets. Also when the first plane hit a camera crew were not filming the towers, they were filming a fire crew handling another incident. In order to fake ALL images they would have to have had the means to deceive 1000's of people in different places.
-
Grahame,did you watch the video in the link I put up by any chance? Have you viewed any youtube video's on the subject at all? Plenty of experts that answer your questions. I have watched Dr Judy Wood's DVD 'Where did the towers go' and can thoroughly recommend it.
-
Well what technology could manufacture an image of what looked like a plane when it hit the second tower whilst we were all watching it at the time? Are you saying that there was enough time delay to allow them to quickly dub in an image of a plane from photoshop?
There were far too many eye winesses who were actually there who said it was a plane. They can't all be in the governments pockets. Also when the first plane hit a camera crew were not filming the towers, they were filming a fire crew handling another incident. In order to fake ALL images they would have to have had the means to deceive 1000's of people in different places.
The whole image pool of 9/11 was prefabricated, no need for any cutting edge technology to insert a plane in real time.
Independance Day & Armageddon movies made a few years before have more realistic looking footage of what happened.
-
Grahame,did you watch the video in the link I put up by any chance? Have you viewed any youtube video's on the subject at all? Plenty of experts that answer your questions. I have watched Dr Judy Wood's DVD 'Where did the towers go' and can thoroughly recommend it.
Yes I have Tyler. The trouble with such videos is that they can be manipulated. You cannot fake such an event in front of 1000's of eye witnesses who were there and saw the whole thing. I believe that a lot of these conspiracy theories came about so as not to offend Muslims.
-
The whole image pool of 9/11 was prefabricated, no need for any cutting edge technology to insert a plane in real time.
Independance Day & Armageddon movies made a few years before have more realistic looking footage of what happened.
Rather we should look at the backgrounds of the conspiracy theorists first before we believe anything they say. The event was recorded by many and not just the American mainstream news media. Too many eye witnesses. I think we have seen too many miscarriages of justice to see how witness statements change because they have been persuaded that what they saw was not what actually happened.
-
Intriguing video about the so called 9/11 ball. It also gives a brief overview of some of the mainstream media fake footage, as per the 'September Clues' video.
-
debunking conspiracy theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV4rvTxcMSY
-
The story of flight 93
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUrUQN0m79o
-
The story of flight 175
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFNMPk4b_48
-
A reconstruction of the flight of AA11 on September 11 2001.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLPehFP_xZw
-
Grahame, see if you can locate the Susan Lindauer video I posted up. Reply no. 28: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5733.15.html
It's very interesting about the run up to and aftermath of 9/11. It tells you the USA position with Iraq behind the scenes and it tells you about who was warned to stay away from New York, just prior to 9/11. Just to be clear, she her self believes there were planes involved (as well as military grade weapons having been used). She talks also about the plane exercise planned for the same day (very convenient that this just happened to be taking place on the same morning as 9/11).
She was arrested under the 'Patriot Act' when she tried to whistleblow.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usltm7FSm38
-
Any idea of the location where these jumpers were filmed from.
-
Programme tonight channel 5 about " The Missing Evidence "-Twin Towers. 8pm-9pm.
-
This very short video has the added bonus of being amusing.... Kind of '9/11 in a nutshell' :D