I was just thinking in today's society, there are so many conspiracy theories (Roswell, JFK, 9/11, Jesus etc.) flying around. What do you consider the top theory, the conspiracy most people talk about. Or what's your pet theory at the minute? Mine would probably be the various conspiracies surrounding Christianity like the Da Vinci Code, Mary Magdalene, the crucifixion, bloodline of Jesus, all that jazz.

Madeline McCann was abducted by a man with no face, who luckily for him was just waiting for the oppurtunity to snatch a child from doctors who thought it was safe to leave a three year old babysitting one year old twins in a unlocked apartment.

You know, put like that...how true are your words? Very simplistically written, but you got the gist of the story right there, and I agree with you, CM.

I would say davinci code or Madeline McCann

In terms of which conspiracies hold the most water I would say it is the ones surrounding a new world order. In terms of which ones are most talked about definitely 9/11 followed then by the ones that started after 'The Da Vinci Code'.

In regards to Madeline McCann I rarely hear people talk about it and to me in this case it seems like the parents killed her accidentally and then covered it up.

The only conspiracy theory which actually might be true is the second JFK shooter, there are inconsistencies there, but inconsistencies aren't enough to jump to conclusions.

As for 9/11, I really doubt any of the "9/11 truthers" believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government. They all act like it's a big game for intellectual superiority over skeptics. They don't act like someone who believes their government is capable of such things, or else they wouldn't be acting like arrogant jackasses whenever they feel they've proved that they're right.

Not meaning to be a 'jackass' but feel free to address the points I raised on the Flight 93 thread if you are so sure.

This may be true but I read somewhere that like 20-30% of the American people believe it was an inside job... I don't believe it was an inside job but I do believe that there was prior knowledge which was ignored although it is hard to say if it was intentional or simply not taken seriously.

As for JFK I believe Oswald acted alone but at the request of someone else, I think Ruby may have killed him because he began to open up to the press and authorities.

I would, but you'd just accuse me of falling for government propaganda or something ridiculous.




I've read that 45% of Americans believe the earth is less than ten thousand years old, so that goes to show what most Americans know.

The internet...
A tool for all nations with the ability to look into our lives and see what we are all up to, and saying all over the world.
I believe all networks are monitored for more sinister reasons than just the normal ones, and with information gathered these organisations use this to change our lives in which ever way they see fit.
You can imagine all these companies/governments etc trolling the networks using secret programs to watch what the world is talking about, and using it for political and monertary gains, keeping the ants at bay.

You couldn't be more wrong. Its staged terror. Been used for centuries as an excuse to take away rights, liberties, and for conquest. The government admits that NORAD was conducting exercises at the exact same time, and same locations as the 9/11 attacks. These "exercises" were suppossed to simulate hijacked airplanes crashing into the WTC and Pentagon. Again, at the exact same time and exact same locations as the real attacks. Dick Cheney was overseeing these exercises. The first time in history a Vice President had done so. That is all fact.

Exact same thing with the London 7/7 bombings. The government admits there were "exercises" taking place at the exact same time, exact same locations as the real attacks. It was just a "coincidence" they say. Yeah, right. And Operation Northwoods doesn't exist either. Give me a break.

Cough...click me

The top conspiracy for me is that Christ is back...and being hunted by the US govt....

See, display the exact kind of intellectual arrogance all 9/11 truthers display.


What do you say about the threat of Islamic terrorism around the world? Is it fake too? Were the embasy bombings staged too? Is the entire organisation of Al Qaeda a wing of the CIA now? Is the entire islamic militant movement which has been bombing people in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, with such intense hatred of the US for their interference in ME politics and support of Israel, which hit the WTC in the 90s and was bound to hit again, a fraud?

The people who push this theory are sheltered in the western world, watching grainy YouTube videos, completely out of the reach of the monster that is militant islamic fundamentalism.

Alqaeda and the CIA are now one in the same....where are all these bombings you talk about?....you display all the signs of an ostrich with his head buried in the sand...dont get shot in the ass...

“Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are on the defensive — on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man — in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America ... [They are] freedom fighters.”

Is this a call to jihad (holy war) taken from one of Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden's notorious fatwas? Or perhaps a communique issued by the repressive Taliban regime in Kabul?

In fact, this glowing praise of the murderous exploits of today's supporters of arch-terrorist bin Laden and his Taliban collaborators, and their holy war against the “evil empire”, was issued by US President Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985. The “evil empire” was the Soviet Union, as well as Third World movements fighting US-backed colonialism, apartheid and dictatorship.

How things change. In the aftermath of a series of terrorist atrocities — the most despicable being the mass murder of more than 6000 working people in New York and Washington on September 11 — bin Laden the “freedom fighter” is now lambasted by US leaders and the Western mass media as a “terrorist mastermind” and an “evil-doer”.

REST OF ARTICLEhere

6000 died on 9/11 ?..is that the conspiracy?...or your assumption reagan declared war on Usama?...lmmao he was arming usama...

They all knew what was going to happen, as both sides worked with each other, like the article says, reagan contributed to the war effort.
You see 'both sides' had a problem with the russians, and this was the easiest way for america to get at the russians, without causing a nuclear war, and at the same time work with the most unlikely of forces selling arms and anything they wanted to buy, but hey thats the political game nations play i suppose?

With the London I admit there is some pretty compelling evidence to suggest that perhaps bombs did not go off how they say they did. However in regards to 9/11 I knew it was an inevitability back in the late 90's that some sort of terrorist attack would be carried out by factions in the ME. If I knew this then the government knew about it to0 and failed to take action to prevent it in which case it makes them as guilty as the men who flew those planes into the buildings.

Such an operation on the scale of 9/11 would be impossible to pull off due to various factors but the main one being is that to many people would be involved and information would have been leaked.

With the exception of a few inconsistencies you really have no proof and after weighing in evidence it is clear to me what caused the collapse of those buildings and it wasn't the government planting thermite and c4.

The weight of evidence for 7/7 as an inside job when compared to 9/11 is nothing. There are literally hundreds of irregularities, coincidences, discrepancies and in some places impossibilities in the official account of 9/11.



Factor in that the CIA/Mossad would be the agencies co-ordinating the inside job, not for the people of today but for the long-term benefits of their countries. Why would any of them feel the need to leak anything when they are acting in the best interest of their state?



A few inconsistencies such as irregular damage causing virtually symmetrical collapses, intact portions of structure giving barely more resistance in the collapse than air, physical analysis indicating fire temperatures in the Towers were relatively low, etc. Throw in the numerous characteristics of a controlled demolition witnessed and supported by a wide range of scholars and academics and I think we have a case.

Osama Bin Laden has been on the FBI most wanted list for years, since before 9/11 for bombing the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Did the US commit those too? For what reason?

Why would the US strage these bombings, so in a few years after they take out the towers they'll have an example of osama bin laden attacking the US so they can easily scapegoat him?

How could you possibly say my head is in the sand when I acknowledge the actual threat, these radical islamists who WILL kill you if they get the chance, not because of your freedom, but because the actions of your government in the middle east has given them a target. If not, they'd be focused on Israel, or the other sects of Islam.

There is nothing conclusive to support that either was a conspiracy.

The reason those buildings fell was because planes hit them it's on video it's pretty clean cut to me.



To be honest I would say sh*t for the right amount of money but this is mostly because i don't have a conscience like most people do.

CIA agents are still human beings for the amount of man power needed to pull off a job that big which resulted in the deaths of thousands it is only logical to assume that someone would have talked. Probably more or less a certainty that someone would talk.



There are more scholars then not who say it happened as they say it happened the collapse was whatever I looked at what was presented and while I am no structural engineer it seems obvious to me that the cause of collapse is clear huge planes smashed into the buildings what do you think will happen yeesh...

Then you do not understand the CIA/Mossad and their motivations. They are, and they know it, whether you do or not, doing their country a service.



If you are really interested: -

• The Towers, each column over designed to bear at least more than double the load ever intended, were far from fatally damaged by the airliner impacts, eg in the South Tower, only one corner of the core, or 11 out of 47 columns were destroyed. The surviving columns were far more than enough to keep the building standing.
  
  
• WTC construction manager, Frank Demartini, stated the buildings could sustain multiple impacts of airliners and he was proven correct when the structures showed no visible sagging or bowing of the floors or façade around the impact zones – the buildings were redistributing their loads exactly as designed.
  
  
• The Tower fires were estimated to be relatively weak and oxygen starved as evident by the thick black smoke and jet fuel was estimated to have burnt off in approximately 20 minutes. Physical analysis of the steel by NIST showed temperatures at 157 out of 160 locations, including those at the impact zones, to be less than 250^oC. Firefighters who reached the impact zone radioed there were only “two isolated pockets of fire”. Structural steel melts at 1500^oC and does not lose half of its strength until heated to approximately 500^oC. The sudden onset of collapse is then impossible – that steel will not give, especially in only 55 minutes as with the South Tower, unless a tremendous amount of heat from an alternative source is applied.
  
  
• Irregular damage as witnessed particularly to the South Tower and WTC7, combined with random fire cannot cause a virtually symmetrical collapse. All instances of steel framed high rises in history which have suffered damage except in a controlled demolition situation have toppled to the side… or not collapsed at all.
  
  
• The 9/11 Commission Report stated the Towers each fell in approximately 10 seconds. If a brick were dropped from the top of the Towers, it would take approximately 10 seconds to strike the ground at freefall speed. Due to resistance, it is not possible that the upper blocks of the Towers could crush the intact and structurally sound lower portion at near freefall speed. This is of course possible in controlled demolition where charges remove the integrity throughout a structure.

The above are the reasons the Towers cannot have collapsed in the way the official story describes. Below is further evidence pointing out a controlled demolition: -

• Many firefighters and eyewitnesses described numerous explosions/bombs/secondary devices going off before the collapses at levels from the basement to the impact zones and those inbetween. See eyewitness and media accounts here.
  
  
• A flow of glowing hot red/orange molten metal, highly resembling a thermite reaction, is seen from the South Tower in the minutes leading up to its collapse.
  
  
• Iron rich spheres discovered at the WTC site can only have been formed in a molten state. FEMA analysis on steel from the rubble pile stated that a high temperature corrosion attack had occurred and firefighters described molten metal flowing like a “foundry” or “lava” in the debris pile. All this means that temperatures in excess of 1,500^oC were somehow reached.
  
  
• As well as the sudden onset of virtually symmetrical, near freefall and total collapses, all only ever witnessed in history through controlled demolition, there were also visible squibs, suggestive of explosive charges, ejected from the Towers far below the collapsing areas.

Now to me AethistGod, bearing in mind this is not even the tip of the 9/11 iceberg, it is fairly clear what happened. The above is all fact and I would suggest people research the points for themselves and expand their knowledge to all aspects of 9/11 if they wish to know the wider truth of the matter.

I understand far better then you think I do...

People are still people regardless of employment former and current CIA agents have spoken out about less and there is no reason to suggest that they wouldn't otherwise speak out about something this huge especially if they didn't think it was right.



1: Buildings aren't always built exactly as they appear on paper, there are several logical and valid arguments that still support the planes as a cause of collapse.

2: Just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true... DO you think the guy in charge of overseeing a construction job is going to dis his own work.

3: The thick black smoke was likely cause not by oxygen starvation but by plastics and other high carbon synthetics. Recently a steel structure did collapse from fire alone...

4: There again are logical explanations being over looked like the pancake effect which is more then a valid argument when your dealing with the massive weight of steel and concrete structures.

5: Your ignoring science and substituting your own... A brick weighs less and it's smaller and so it will reach critical velocity much slower then say millions of pounds of concrete flooring. This is like comparing an ant to a human in regards to fall speed an ant hits critical velocity at about 2 inches meaning it will not fall any faster even if you dropped it from a foot up, a human reaches critical velocity at around 9 meters.

Rather weak arguments from a scientific point of view... I'm still not convinced.



1: Secondary explosions could have been cause by numerous sources whether it be excess gas in lines of a can of pain thinner in a closet.

2: Thermite cannot be used to melt of cut vertical beams

3: There are any number of explanations for temperatures this high being reached such as rust and aluminum shavings which both are not all that uncommon in office buildings.

4: The squibs were likely cause by beams giving out due to pressure of the collapsing floors above along with the vibrations.



What I typed is also fact and does not rely on speculation and complex conspiracy theory either.

From a scientific point of view there really isn't a lot of evidence to go on besides speculation and hearsay. Sorry but if this is what you have to convince me it's not enough, find me something conclusive and you will make me a believer.

Your right though it is clear what happened planes hit building and they collapsed.

YOUR truth is nothing more then YOUR opinion and aside from speculation I see no truth in your words.

Regardless of what the commission report states, this is wrong. Both towers took considerably longer than 10 seconds to fall.

This site shows from the videos that the collapses were longer than 10 seconds.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

What is interesting is that one second you'll condemn the commission report then the next you'll take a 10 second collapse time as gospel?

>>>>>>>>>>



No "arrogance" there.......

Anyway, exactly how would someone who "actualy believed the government was capable of such things" act?



Notice how Osama isn't on the FBI's list for 911? Why is that?



Then how would you explain the Pakistani students who were on Good Morning America and were asked about Osama, they're answer "who is Osama? he is a character made up by the CIA". They go on to explain that most Pakistanis have this belife.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVzFzgHu0T0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqs9ap3iV-4

They wouldnt be posting in a forum about it and engaging in games of intellectual boxing.




Definite proof that 9/11 is an inside job there.

The FBI's most wanted list is meant to be for the worst criminals in the US, not foreign criminals and terrorists. I frankly dont know why Osama is on the list for the embassy bombings, but they probably had a good reason. Also, there is a 25 million dollar reward for his for taking him out, so he doesn't need to be on the FBIs list.




Right so you blast me for believing what the government says, when I dont, then you go and believe random pakistani students who say something which supports your worldview?




If you didn't cherry pick Bill Hicks work you'd know that he says also to think for yourself.

So, if someone actualy believed the government was guilty of a conspiracy, they would not discuss it on the internet?

I think "intellectual boxing" like real boxing takes two participants. Perhaps the jabs from the other guy are just more noticeable to you?



No, of course its not. However, I think its strange they don't list him as being wanted for 911.



Sorry, I don't think I was blasting you, just offering evidence to challange your opinion.

So, (and I am not trying to put words in your mouth) are you saying your statement about "The people who push this theory are sheltered in the western world, watching grainy YouTube videos, completely out of the reach of the monster that is militant islamic fundamentalism" is the governments says? And do you solely base your opinion on what the government says?



I don't think I was cherry picking his words. If you want, you are welcome to cherry pick some of his words that support what seems to be your trusting view of the government.

I wouldn't be jabbing back if there wasn't an attitude of "everyone who disagrees with the conspiracy is a government pawn" among the 9/11 truthers. If anything you should embrace my skepticism, because it should have been skepticism which lead you to believing this theory.




Again, the FBI list isn't for foreign terrorists, if they put him on for the embassy bombings he should be on for 9/11 too. But I'm not the boss of that.




I base my opinion on what the experts say. But the conspiracy theorists can easily ignore those, because anyone who offers anything that goes against the theory can be written off as government misinformation, which really makes responding to these claims almost futile. I feel I know enough about Radical Islam now to get that, not only are they capable of this, they are capable of doing it again and again until they get their way unless we stop them. You can't ignore this threat and attribute their attacks to the government, or they'll hit again and again. And it's not because of our freedom, it's because of Israel and the support it recieves from the west. If Israel wasn't there these radical muslims would be killing each other.

So now that we're in this rut, we have to follow through.




When have I ever said that I trust the government? Just because I reject all these conspiracy theories doesn't mean I trust my leaders, I know I didn't vote for any of them. I think anyone who completely trusts the Bush Administration is sick in the head.

It was

Believe it or not, not to long ago I found the idea that the government could do something like 911 absolutely preposterous. I remember seeing a bumpersticker that said "bush knew" and thought it was completely ridiculous. Even after the first few things I read and saw about the 911 inside job theory, I still didn't buy it. It was interesting but I could also see how the evidence could go either way. Anyway, it took me alot of reaserch and time to finaly conclude it didn't add up the way we were told it did. And while I have never cared for Bush, I have never really dis-trusted the government the way I do now, so I don't feel like I was biased in forming my conclusion.



Well, I agree with that. However, I really don't think Islamist were behind 911. Israel has its (zoinist) goals and isn't afraid to attack its allies or kill its own people to reach those goals. I think they are as much if not more of a threat than these rag-tag bands of Islamic militants who train on jungle-gyms and live in caves.

The thing about it is that there are real terrorist and real dangerous Islamic groups, no question. However, there is just to much for me that doesn't add up about 911 and the war on terror, to believe all is as its been told in the official account.

AtheistGod, your response says you do not really want to know what would happen due to the airliners impacting the Towers. Please note though that my points are based on much research, physical and visual evidence, eyewitness reports from the day and proven physics rather than just my own opinion. A few points: -



You cannot dispute that the Towers had 47 immense core columns, each with the strength to carry more than double the load they were intended to.



The ‘pancake theory’ has been widely discredited and accepted as invalid, even by NIST which supports that the core columns gave way causing collapse rather than a ‘pancaking’ of the floors.



You say I am ignoring science then state the size and weight of an object determines its rate of freefall. Try dropping a bowling ball and billiard ball from the same height – they will hit the floor at the same time. This picture demonstrates the point I was making: -



The block suspended in the air would take approximately 10 seconds to freefall to the ground in a vacuum. On 9/11 the blocks above the impact zones, with air resistance and all that intact structure below, took approximately 13 seconds to reach the ground. How can the Towers have collapsed at nearly the same rate as though falling through a vacuum?



This short video of a linear thermite cutting charge shows how vertical columns can be cut.



Rust and aluminium are essentially the components of thermite, which yes I am saying caused the high temperatures. This reaction cannot occur by accident though with a fine mix being necessary and extreme temperatures not reached in normal fire required to ignite it. An American physicist actually carried out an experiment pouring molten aluminium onto rust to see if an accidental thermite reaction could occur – the results proved it could not.

That is interesting frenat, as I found myself asking the reverse question of ‘debunkers’ before I even finished reading your post. Good job pointing out the failings of the 'comprehensive' account of the official story though, I agree the Commission Report is full of holes and untruths.

I used the word “approximately” in describing the official version of 10 second falls. I would say myself the demolition took approximately 13 seconds. It makes little difference either way as the largely undisputed fact is the collapses were at near freefall speed. This is easy to explain if the lower portion of the structures were weakened through demolition charges, thus reducing its resistance.

Of course the US government was capable of it, there were alot of groups which could have done it. But if you just look at the bush administration and the amount of screw ups in the past 7 years, the fact that they could have planned and commited the 9/11 attacks in the short time they were in power seems almost paradoxical. You have to invoke a larger conspiracy to work it out. Was Clinton involved? He was planning on going back into Iraq to take out Saddam, so that might suggest he was in on the plan, but the fact that his vice president ran against Bush, and that Clinton tried hard to kill Bin Laden, the future scapegoat, after the Embassy bombings suggests that he wasn't.

To reconcile this you have to invoke a much larger shadowy organisation behind it all, which has never been encountered. It just doesn't obey ockhams razor, whereas islamic radicals bent on killing americans does.

If you study events such as the following, it is apparent that plans were in the pipeline years before the Bush administration actually came to power: -

• Agents of the Bin Laden Issue Station, a CIA unit formed to track Bin Laden in 1996, infiltrated Afghan militant units and Al Qaeda in 1999. The fact Cofer Black described this as the “largest collection and disruption activity in the history of mankind” says to me there were definitely agents ‘inside’.
  
  
• Do you know of the PNAC formed in 1997, which included members Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton amongst others? Have you read the document Rebuilding America's Defenses, the plan which required, and I quote “a new Pearl Harbor” as a catalyst? Within 6 months of these individuals coming to power, they had their catalyst allowing plans to move along nicely since.

Lets go back in time and see who was the director of the C.I.A. whom became president and his son to follow, who also became President. To think that the attack on 9/11 was thought up quickly is a mistake. I have to wonder what other president was ever director of the C.I.A. for 8 years. The C.I.A. can deny the President access to what it feels. Now saying that G.B. Senior would have had access to anything and that means anything. Then becomming a President envokes a large area for concern. He is President, with the knowledge that other Presidents had been denied access to and will never have access to. Having a clandesdine C.I.A. become president was the downfall, as there is nothing they really have to answer for. Very scary, me thinks.

Hmmm, I would have to say the conspiracy theory regarding 9/11. While I believe that the idea of our own government planning and carrying-out these attacks themselves is beyond preposterous, I have noticed that it is quite popular.

Well, I for one do believe there is more at work than appears on the surface.

Whats the deal with skeptics allways bringing up "ockhams razor"? Its a dusty relic from the 14th century that in its time could have been used to maintain the status quo that the earth was flat. I mean, why complicate simple theory like, "we don't fall off the earth becuase its flat" with a bunch of "mass, time and space" mumbo-jumbo?

Ockhams razor usually works though. The more complex something is the less likely that it's true. Of course things change, we know we don't fall off of the earth because of gravity, and now that we know gravity exists it's less complex than explaining how we could stand on a flat earth.

fish of cradles

i've heard some talk @ mossad agents who were busted trying to plant bombs in a mexican embassy..
you could also try using that razor of yours at silver thong post #35?


i'm not singling you out, but i see a potential flaw in this.
you've reversed poor old occum, who maintained that "the simplest/most obvious explanation is usually correct"

you say "the more complex something is the less likely it's true, but things change" ..then go on to use gravity as the example.. i think i see your reasoning here, because gravity is still a mysterious force in that we know what it is, but not exactly why it works (hence the need for occum in the first place)
[thread evolved into 911 debate. the 911 event. we know what that was.. but not why it happened etc]
^
the earth spins and keeps us grounded, this is my understanding of gravity.. if there is more to the story then i ought to prepare a lawsuit against my school teachers <and/or> it becomes more complex and (as per your reasoning) will only become less likely to be true?
sorry to be difficult but you raise these issues..i am not entirely ignorant on the matter, and have even come across alternative gravity theories in my travels, but i digress..

i think you say it best >> "we know we don't fall off of the earth because of gravity" .. heh.. "fall off of" (how simple can one get ) ..your description of gravity is not complex, therefore must be true? (reversed occum, because if you were using standard occum, you'd be suggesting that gravity is a [scientific] conspiracy and the real cause is invisible velcro angels or something, right?)

the alternative explanations of the gravity that you allude to are the falsehoods. our understanding/concept of gravity is nothing more than invisible velcro angels v1.2 and it will be upgraded again as we learn more..

ROFL @ those believing 100% the bush admin are sick in the head.. (there is hope for you yet )

truly hijacking a thread that should not be about the false hijackers
about this 911 thing.. i've seen a photo of a woman who was peering out of the impact site shortly after the planes struck. obviously things were not a raging inferno in there at that stage. what changed?

I read somewhere, that back in the early 90's when the first terrorist attack on the WTC happened. people where saying 'don't worry, the buildings wont crumble they can with stand a full size aeroplane crash' how ironic is that????

What's ironic about it? The Towers could and did withstand airliner crashes. Even WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini said: -

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 probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen netting.

The official story says that combined with the relatively minor damage, the short period of heating of the steel within the structures is what ultimately brought them down. This being highly unlikely, impossible some would say, is one of the hundreds of reasons leading people to claim 9/11 was an inside job.

Has anyone picked up that I think 9/11 is the 'Top Conspiracy Around'?

I just find it interesting that actually happened

Me too And it gets more interesting the further you look into it and realise it was not the airliners that brought the Towers down.

if anything the US intellegence services probably knew about the 9/11 guys and LET them do their thing. I wouldn't bet on them having a hand in it because something like could never be kept under wraps for an indefinite period unless all the perpitraitors die on the same day as 9/11. Otherwise someone somewhere would spill the beans. A move like this could tear a whole country apart and upper echelons knew it. But they also knew the terorists had a chance of success and for them its all good. Any fear generated by the event would beefit them so instead of blowing the whistle they just kept quite. It is interesting the type of strategic exercises being done that day were the exact right ones. But that would fall less in the 'they did it' category and more in the 'they let it happen but took steps to minimize the event'. See its the contradiction of events that bother me. The US has an intellegence aparatus, in this instance it apperently failed providing no advance warning of the event. It was os ineffiecient that a good many of these guys lived and operated in the US without being picked up on. Then conversely the same aparatus just hours after 9/11 had all this cogent info on the terorists. So are they the most incompetent bunch or the most efficient bunch because their actions leading up to and after work at opposite angles to each other.

I can absolutely agree with half of that sentence Stixxman. Indeed some of the supposed hijackers lived with an FBI informant and five of the hijackers lived right outside the gates of the NSA. Also there was a major CIA programme to infiltrate Afghan militant groups and Al Qaeda around the same time the majority of hijackers aligned themselves with Osama Bin Laden.



Why do you suppose the beans should be spilt on an inside job but not your theory of the intelligence agencies knowing what was about to happen?

well its the size of the lie and plausible deniability. No matter who perpetraited it if it came out that they had a direct hand in it there would be no quarter. The American people would want blood and they would want all of it, they wouldn't be satisfied with a sacrificial lamb. Now knowing about and letting it happen is different. With this situation you could insulate yourself by blaming an incompetent officer for not passing on the info(oli North anyone) its not your fault you could say it was an ineffiecient employee who has since been canned. It plays out a little better and is a little more bullet proof. Having a direct hand is just to big a secret to keep someone would blab eventually. I also think of pearl harbor a lot, I'm sure they knew but sacrificed their battle ships and saved their carriers on the day. Never had all the carriers been out of port at the same time until that day, before that it just didn't happen. So who put all the carriers to sea and kept all the outdated battleships in port, Kimmel? King? Leahy? Marshall?...................Roosevelt????

I think the key words here are "if it came out". You believe elements of the intelligence agencies knew full well what was about to happen. None have come out and said, "ah, yes actually I'm going to 'blow the whistle' here... we knew it was coming and let it happen on purpose". I mean, why in the world would they? I do not see how the same does not apply to individuals, within for instance the CIA, being directly involved in the attacks. The information has not been leaked for 'let it happen on purpose', so why should it be for the 'complicity' theory. In fact, the direct involvement of some individuals would be all the more motivation for them to ensure it was not leaked.

Also bear in mind the possibility of the Mossad playing a hand in events at least as big as any US agency and there being even less motivation for them coming forward and 'revealing all'.

Dose Kitco really see Ghostly aparations, Dose he dream of future events to take place,
was he really an alien experiment?, or shape shifter man sex toy?

*shivers*

thank-you i'm not the only one here that thinks this weren't there reports from survivors that before the planes hit they heard loud booms like explosions (although this could be another consipiracy) also when i was watching the towers fall the way they fell reminded me of the way they take down old buildings (using explosions!)



wtf?????

There are many media reports and eyewitness accounts of explosions and secondary devices in the Towers right down to the basement. Also there is video evidence of a large explosion at WTC7, the other building that collapsed on 9/11, and someone at the scene stating the building is about to "blow up".



Yes, the way the WTC buildings fell demonstrated a number of characteristics of controlled demolition: -

• Sudden onsets
• Virtually symmetrical
• Near freefall
• Complete collapses
• Visible demolition squibs