I have heard of some theories about the 9/11 attack. So I have some question if anyone could help me, if they have the time.

1. Were there bombs in the WTC?

2. Were there caucasians arrested on one of the bridges around NYC for having bombs?

3. Why did everyone there witness planes fly into the WTC if there were bombs in the buildings?

4. What do you think really happened? Was there a cover up?

1. No

2. Haven't heard that one before so I can't say yes or no

3. There were no bombs, no "controlled demolition explosives", no "death ray" (yes, there are people who believe a "death ray" was used to bring down the Towers"). People saw planes hit the towers because planes hit the towers.

4. In my opinion, which is based on reading a lot of the threads here on this and other boards, and reading a lot of the websites (both for and against the conspiracies) and other information, and considering the evidence (or lack thereof) presented by the various sides, two planes hit the Towers as history records. The impacts severely compromised the Towers' structural integrity, which was worsened by the fires fueled by the jet fuel and all the other combustible materials, which inevitably led to the collapses. No bombs, no controlled demolition.

For me, the WTC7 issue is still up in the air. There is a lot of compelling information on both sides, but if I had to pick between a controlled demo and collapse due to damage from the other Tower debris, I would have to pic the latter. There are just too many more holes in the conspiracy theory side of things with that one, although, as I said, there is some compelling evidence for a cover up there.

Where I think the real probability of a cover up lies is with who was really behind the attack and what motivations there were. Again, with this, there is compelling evidence on all sides, and at this point, I am not prepared to pick a "side" to stand on.

Hope that helps...


Cz

Thanks for your replies. I'm new to the whole conspiracy thing except for the whole Da Vinci Code mumbo jumbo. Cryptozoology and fighting with the people in the metaphysics section is more my bag of tea. I wonder if people would still be looking into this so thoroughly if it was Clinton instead of Bush as president. Or perhaps Kerry instead of Bush.

1. The "official" answer is no, though some would make a case that there were. Any chance of doing tests on the metal to find out for certain went away when the metal was collected and sold before ever being tested.

2. There were 5 suspicious people (can't remember their nationality) who were arrested when they were seen video taping the events of 9/11 while appearing to celebrate what was happening. In connection to that story is where I believe the one comes of people having bombs in a white van with the thought they were looking to blow up a certain bridge or bridges.

The story about the 5 people I mentioned above is true. I think there was more to it, but I can't recall if the other story I'm tying into is true or not. I don't think anyone involved was caucasian though.

3. If there were bombs in the building, their purpose was to take the structures down. Many believe that planes flying into the buildings alone wasn't, or shouldn't have been, enough to make the towers collapse. Hence the reason/idea that bombs were planted inside to cause a controlled demolition.

4. Certain things are definately being covered up. It seems blatantly clear that America had warnings in advance of such an attack taking place. The government would rather deny that though and/or keep the truth about it buried.

Now, did those that run America play an active role in causing the act to come to fruition...I can't give a definitive answer to that. I do know that I feel I have more reasons to question the official version of events than I would actually like to have.

Even if the attack was a complete surprise, the way the people in charge reacted to such an act leaves a lot to be questioned.

1. dunno, maybe?

2. no idea.

3. well, if there were bombs in the buildings that doesn't suggets no planes hit the buildings. Personaly, I think planes hit the towers and am open to the idea there were bombs in the buildings.

4. As do most Americans, I think we have not been told the whole story.

I assume this the Isrealis story. A group of Israelis were arrested travelling in the direction of a bridge. You can read through a discussion about it here (starts at my post at bottom of page) between Q24 (who believes the van had explosives in it and the Israelis were involved in blowing up the WTC) and me (who doesn't). All the links to sources etc are there for you to make up your own mind.

over a hundred mossad agents were detained inside the US after 9/11....all info is classified..they were released by michael chertoff...

If it's all classified then how do you know about it? Do you haev anything to back this up - if not then why should anyone believe you?

Visit My Website


link above....

SteveLove,

There is a lot of speculation of what happened that day. A lot of people believe a lot of pretty outlandish things. The hard part is trying to figure out what the consensus is. Those that believe the government was behind it have yet to put forth a unified alternative theory of what they think happened that day (yes, it's been over 6 years). In fact, if you were to try to put together a timeline which incorporates the more "mainstream" 9/11 conspiracy beliefs, you'll soon start to see how impossible it would be. This is why a unified alternative theroy has yet to be put forth. They must realize how ridiculous it all really is.

I suggest you take a look at this site to see logical answers to the more mainstream 9/11 conspiracy beliefs, backed up by links to reputable sources.

That site explains everything..who owns it the NSA?...does it explain mohammed attas meetings in auberndale and knoxville...

If the government was behind it, it's hard to believe they could do something so atrocious. Scary stuff.

That's the most plausible sounding suggestion I've seen put forward; that (some feel) it was necessary for the whole thing to come down to cause enough public outrage to justify war; whether or not you believe it is entirely up to you, of course.


I think there was definitely a cover up; but I think it was to cover up the government's incompetence and negligence, at getting warning that something, at least, was being planned, but not knowing what to do about about it and the president's hardly behaving in a statesmanlinke manner when it did. Plus, of course, there was the embarassment that the intelligence community were on quite friendly terms with Mr. Bin Laden.

Without doubt there were many explosions in the WTC buildings at different levels prior to the collapses - I think everybody agrees on that.


Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories is a compilation of eyewitness testimony detailing explosions. Below are two accounts from the article: -

• Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, ?how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?? After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman ?heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.? After they pried themselves out of the elevator, ?another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I?m thinking, ?Oh. My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!??
  
  
• Multiple explosions were also reported by Teresa Veliz, who worked for a software development company in the north tower. She was on the 47th floor, she reported, when suddenly ?the whole building shook. . . . [Shortly thereafter] the building shook again, this time even more violently." Then, while Veliz was making her way downstairs and outside: ?There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."

The short video Eyewitness & Media Accounts Of Bombs At The WTC on 9/11 contains further eyewitness accounts and media reports from the day. A couple of examples: -

• “Just moments ago I spoke to the chief of safety for the New York City fire department, he received word of the possibility of a secondary device - that is another bomb going off ... according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.” – Pat Dawson, MSNBC
  
  
• Then, an hour later than that we had that big explosion from much, much lower - I don't know what on Earth caused that. – Stephen Evans, BBC

As for WTC7, explosions can be heard in video footage here, here and here where even rescue workers say “the building is about to blow up”.


Now, the official story followers will try to tell you that the many documented explosions were all a result of the airliner crashes, but with so many large explosions occurring at lower levels and long after the airliners had impacted I’m not buying it at all. If you wish to claim that, we need plausible reasons for how witnesses in the basement, lobby and numerous floors below the impact zones experienced explosions and why many people evacuating the buildings nowhere near the crash were burnt and bloodied. Add that we have initial on the scene firefighters describing the explosions as like “bombs” and the FBI stating “secondary devices” were suspected, followed by a collapse imitating controlled demolition, I think it safe to say there were 'bombs' in the buildings.



As ifisurvive said, we have previously discussed these arrests. Initial news reports sourced from the FBI, later retracted, described “a truckload of explosives”. Some people ignore this as a mistaken news report whilst others, especially after all the explosions described above, find it relevant. Whilst we cannot agree on the “explosives” story, the facts below are not in dispute.

A group of Israelis watching the attacks were arrested in New York on 9/11 after eyewitnesses described them as happy, jumping for joy and giving high fives. Upon arrest, before being questioned, they proclaimed their innocence for the attacks.

Some of the Israelis were thought to be Mossad agents by authorities after their names showed up on a national intelligence database search. After one of the Israelis took (and failed) a lie-detector test, his lawyer stated he had been reluctant to take the test because he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country.

A former CIA counterterrorism officer is reported as stating, “There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11.”

The men were believed to be using a ‘front’ company called Urban Moving Systems, the owner of which rapidly closed down the business and fled the US after 9/11.

All information can be found in the following links: -

• ABC News: Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?
• WRH: The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9-11
• Counterpunch: What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks?

Also of interest is the WTC leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, who has a number of Israeli connections.



Airliners flew into the building which could be blamed on Arab hijackers and the explosives were placed in the buildings for the controlled demolition. Without the airliners, Al Qaeda could not have been blamed. Without the explosives the buildings would not collapse.



You tell me.

I agree... this is pretty much my take on where the only "real" cover-up lies with 9/11.


Cz

That there were explosions, yes, I believe there is no doubt about that.

However, the doubt lies in what caused those explosions.



Nice opinon... not corroborated by fact, tho.



Cz

Yeah, if you had managed to read a bit further you would see I say as much: -


Try answering the above.



That the WTC buildings should not have collapsed is corroborated by everything that is to be expected through limited damage and random fire. You think the official line is corroborated by fact??? Believe me, the official fairytale is based on nothing but tenuous assumption, speculation and stretching of the truth to fit a pre-conceived conclusion.

What I think is that if you remove large percentage of the support structure underneath a very very large mass, and weaken the remaining support structure, that mass will fall of its own volition. Gravity does work.



And of course, there's never been a conspiracy theory or theorist that rely on those exact same things, has there...?



Cz

It seems you have no response to the question regarding explosions lower down the buildings.



How much do you class as a large percentage?

Or it could be that I'm looking to an area of this topic that I don't have a lot of knowledge about, but wanted to post the rebuttal I did have at the time...




Cz

So you don't know why there were explosions lower down the building and you can't tell me what you class as a large percentage. Here's something for you - the airliner impacts were estimated to have caused a low percentage of damage, eg in WTC1 only 3 of the 47 massive steel core columns were estimated to be severed.



So you posted a rebuttal without doing any research on the topic.

I posted my opinion, which apparently is what the OP of this thread wanted - other people's opinions.

I fully admit that I have not studied all the 9/11 conspiracies as much as others obviously have, but I do have my opinions, just as everyone else does. Perhaps I shouldn't have used "rebuttal" and just said that I wanted to post my opinion at that time.

Regardless... the apparent intent of this thread wasn't to get into a debate since there are already several threads for that, so perhaps I also should have posted my opinions elsewhere.


Cz

All good.

I'm just pointing out that whilst giving your opinion and claiming my thought is not based on fact, you avoid the points I raise and show you have no facts of your own. I think a great deal of official story followers operate on this basis.

I agree, and think the same can also be said for a great deal of conspiracy theorists, and not just ones concerned with the 9/11 conspiracies.

9/11 hasn't been my main area of study as far as conspiracies go. I have read some of the theories and some of the official positions and have formed my opinions accordingly. While both sides present compelling evidence, it is my opinion there is more evidence for the official side of the attacks and building collapses. I do, however, have some doubts about the official claims regarding WTC7, and have chosen to wait before choosing a "side" in that debate. Beyond that, when getting into areas of responsibility and governmental accountability, I do believe there is much that has still not been disclosed.



Cz

[quote name='SteveLove' post='2102785' date='Jan 18 2008, 04:00 AM']I have heard of some theories about the 9/11 attack. So I have some question if anyone could help me, if they have the time.

1. Were there bombs in the WTC?
no

2. Were there caucasians arrested on one of the bridges around NYC for having bombs?
no

3. Why did everyone there witness planes fly into the WTC if there were bombs in the buildings?
Because thats what happened

4. What do you think really happened? Was there a cover up?
Planes were flown into the buildings causing them to collapse as witnessed by several million people as it happened (including me) & no.

But hey.....everyone loves a good conspiracy theory right...

Has any answer been given as to why molten metal was found buried in the debris?

Is it possible for that to happen from the fuel of the jets and/or other substances from in the buildings?

The reason I ask is because it's a fact there was molten metal buried beneath everything. I'm of the understanding that this couldn't have happened without the presence of thermite or thermate. Is this true or is there soemthing else that could have made the metals so hot, such as the fuel from the jets.

As a general statement I would agree with that… but I am not talking about generalisations; I am talking about the here and now apparent on this thread.



Just to warn you of the type of unrealistic theories the official story relies upon - according to official story followers, the molten metal was created through the debris pile and fires creating some sort of accidental smelter. As smelters are specifically designed to allow high temperatures and the correct flow of oxygen, the chance of this randomly occuring from a building collapse are practically zero. 2,500^oC thermite reactions insulated in the ground could well on the other hand cause the 'hot-spots' and molten metal reported.


SteveLove, as it was you who asked the questions, I would be interested in your response to my post at the bottom of the last page.

If you dont know it was a cover-up yet you need to see this.

Open you mind! Dont just throw it away!!!!!!!

Masonry and 9/11 mega ritual


It is all i can do.

More 9/11 proof of ritual

The mass media IS your enemy. There is a formula i use when i dont know what to do, its called ockhams razor.
In the masonry video movies are just facet of synchronicty, if you have read up on mind control you come to a startling conclusion.

The movies were made to condition YOU so YOU wouldn't ask questions, long before it ever happened it was well planned, and the mass media and movies were there to subliminally create this event in YOUR MIND, so that you wouldn't stop. for a second. and think about what this REALLY means.

*raises eyebrow*