9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

[darkbreed]

All the direct and traditional evidence from the wtc remains, as well as the pentagon "peek-hole"-blast to the non-existing plane in the Pensylvania "crash" shows beyond any reasonable doubt that it was STAGED, PERFORMED and PRE-PLANNED with Governments knowledge and acceptance and NO "afghani terrorists" involved.

So just that alone makes it strange people still argue about a case that is so clear.

Then further on you got the fuller picture, that I presented in my brief 911 Mega Ritual video (that can be seen here: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=217303 ), that gives further evidence and clarification, showing that it was planned for at least DECADES before the towers were even built, with occult foundation behind it all - there simply is no doubt to what happened, who were behind it, was it was for and how it was done.

Truly a complex and mindbending plan but still got through.

[Scott G]

All the direct and traditional evidence from the wtc remains, as well as the pentagon "peek-hole"-blast to the non-existing plane in the Pensylvania "crash" shows beyond any reasonable doubt that it was STAGED, PERFORMED and PRE-PLANNED with Governments knowledge and acceptance and NO "afghani terrorists" involved.

So just that alone makes it strange people still argue about a case that is so clear.

I think the main reason is that those who believe the official story just haven't done enough research. There was actually an article on the subject that I saw posted here once.

Then further on you got the fuller picture, that I presented in my brief 911 Mega Ritual video (that can be seen here: http://www.unexplain...howtopic=217303 ), that gives further evidence and clarification, showing that it was planned for at least DECADES before the towers were even built, with occult foundation behind it all - there simply is no doubt to what happened, who were behind it, was it was for and how it was done.

Truly a complex and mindbending plan but still got through.

I admit that I'm somewhat more hesitant to believe that it was planned decades before the towers were even built. I have found many of your videos to be interesting, but I feel that I'd need more evidence before believing claims such as this one. Also.. the closed caption you have for that video.. I'm guessing it was some software that did it... pretty bad :-/. I could understand it without it though.

[skyeagle409]

I disagree. In fact, I think the one who's overlooked the facts is you; it's all there in the above quote from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Of all the points put forward, you only argued against one of them, which I will deal below. As Morpheus said to Neo in the Matrix:

" I'm trying to free your mind... But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.

If you want me to look at something, present it to me, or at the very least link it; to do otherwise is to expect your opponent to present your own evidence for you.

I'd say that this happens most with the official theory types; I've seen them work themselves into a lather trying to make sense of all the contradictions in the official story. One need go no further then listen to the official story experts to see what I mean:

Not sure which loose change site you mean. I wasn't around in the first incarnation of the Loose Change forum. I -was- around for its second incarnation and participated there for a while. Unfortunately, a moderator there didn't like me and I was banned. It's not the most active of forums anyway, so it wasn't the end of the world for me. I definitely thought that the loose change videos were quite good.

That theory's been debunked. Here's a good video debunking it:

Once again, those sites are spewing nothing more than disinformation and misinformation. Check out the videos and photos that I have posted.To further add, no one heard any explosions that were attributed to bombs because what they heard was the breakup of the buildings. In Hawaii, there was a house whose roof was blown off during a hurricane and when it departed, the owner said it sounded like an explosion.

The collapse of the WTC buildings occurred only at the points of impacts and nothing to do with bombs.

Edited November 14, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

All the direct and traditional evidence from the wtc remains, as well as the pentagon "peek-hole"-blast to the non-existing plane in the Pensylvania "crash" shows beyond any reasonable doubt that it was STAGED, PERFORMED and PRE-PLANNED with Governments knowledge and acceptance and NO "afghani terrorists" involved.

So just that alone makes it strange people still argue about a case that is so clear.

Then further on you got the fuller picture, that I presented in my brief 911 Mega Ritual video (that can be seen here: http://www.unexplain...howtopic=217303 ), that gives further evidence and clarification, showing that it was planned for at least DECADES before the towers were even built, with occult foundation behind it all - there simply is no doubt to what happened, who were behind it, was it was for and how it was done.

Truly a complex and mindbending plan but still got through.

For what purpose would the government have for doing such a thing?

[DONTEATUS]

I see If I watch the Matrix then I will know where all the data came from in some peoples theroy on the WTC destruction ?

Hum, Now I see a trend developing,too much MOVIE research to back ones data instead of actual facts and proof.

Maybe one could bring to the table some real proof of anything other than Two Aircraft slamming into the towers that terrifing day.

Were the lifes of all the people that were killed made up?

[Mike 215]

A new investigation has to be opened on 911 attacks. A congressional committee with the powers to subpoena all all classified records from the CIA, FBI and other government agenies has to be formed. The 911 Commission admitted they got no cooperation from these agencies so the committee will have have these powers. The committee can use the 1977 Congressional Committee on the assassation of JFK as a model to do its work. That committee did find a conspiracty to kill the president, but had no power to have those involved arrested. the new committee should have those powers.

[Q24]

A new investigation has to be opened on 911 attacks.

The best chance of that at the moment is getting Ron Paul into office: -

He has flatly distanced himself from ‘conspiracy theories’ and the 9/11 truth movement (whether that’s a necessary smokescreen to boost his chances I don’t know) but has said, “I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever… ”

And as seen in the clip above, he appears open to a new 9/11 investigation.

[turbonium]

The notion that controlled demolitions brought down the buildings is nonsense. After all, did the explosions from each aircraft result of the instant collapes of the WTC 1 and 2 buildings? No,

That doesn't help your case, it actually supports the case for CD. Structural integrity remained on 80+ floors below the damaged areas, and that's why the damage had no effect.

and once again, review the photo to understand that if explosives are not properly placed nor proper preparation is done before explosives are placed, then you are not going to get the WTC buidlings to collapse.

You can't grasp the blatant contradiction this makes with your argument? Not hard to see, surely?

[skyeagle409]

That doesn't help your case, it actually supports the case for CD.

The buildings collapsed due to structural damage and eventually failure due to the fires. That fact has now been determined.

...Structural integrity remained on 80+ floors below the damaged areas, and that's why the damage had no effect.

The damage occurred at the point of impacts which is where the collapse originated. Now, there are 9/11 comspiracist who are now backing away from the demolition theory.

[Holmesian]

The best chance of that at the moment is getting Ron Paul into office: -

He has flatly distanced himself from ‘conspiracy theories’ and the 9/11 truth movement (whether that’s a necessary smokescreen to boost his chances I don’t know) but has said, “I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever… ”

And as seen in the clip above, he appears open to a new 9/11 investigation.

Hello again Q24,

I have been following this for a while and I can say I really don't have a dog in this fight. I am not a supporter of the neoconservatives. I can accept in principle the concept of them manipulating events to their own ends, in fact I have little doubt that they have. I am not an American. I find as intriguing as the next person a good conspiracy theory. I appreciate that in these things the descent in to the minutiae is often important in finding the truth. But I struggle with the big picture. From looking at a number of CT protaganists the over all plan seems to be roughly:

1) the neocons are concerned with the impending loss of American power and reduction on military spending

2)they as businessmen are also looking to benefit from an increase in profit in the arms industry

3)they come to power and decide they need to redress points 1) and 2)

4)looking at precedent they decide they need to create a false flag conspiracy to ready the american conciousness for an appetite for war

5)they accept surely as a concept that any plan they come up with if discovered would potentially spell the end not only of their reputation and their family's reputation, but also their already vast wealth, their liberty if not their lives, and the continued existence of one of the major political parties in the history of the world.

With this in mind, they come up with this as a plan:

6) arrange for a group of predominantly saudi arabian civillians to hijack a number of planes,even though their plans ultimately do not involve an attack on saudi arabia

7)arrange for those planes to be possibly changed mid flight ( resulting in the first added unnecessary complication and potential for someone to leak)

8)alternatively not change the flights and fly those planes with a large number of innocent passengers in to the world trade centre and other targets killing a further large number of their own civillians

9)decide that this in itself may not be enough to raise the american conciousness for war so have explosives planted in these buildings as well, even though this adds an extra layer of risk and complexity to an already risky plan

10)blow up building 7 as well sometime after your main icons have gone down, just for good measure, even though again this adds an extra element of risk to an already ludicrously risky plan, considering what is at stake if discovered

11) do this in a controlled explosives way except without the explosives being seen to go off in other parts of the buldings as would be expected

12) fake some calls from the passengers from the planes

13)use this whole incident as a pretext to invade Iraq,

14)realise however that in this elaborate plan you have devised you have neglected to make any direct link to iraqi involvement, forcing you to come up with other tenuous links to support an invasion of that country

If you were one of the conspirators and that plan was floated across the table,would the response be " Well given what is at stake I cannot think of a less convoluted,less risk adverse,more reasonable operation"

This is where I struggle to get on board.

[psychoticmike]

No problem.

That's nice. I still think that I wasn't proven wrong. I guess that leaves us... where we were.

I guess so.

It is indeed.

yes, it seems the fbi interpreted it differently then you did. They apparently don't see it as a confession.

Well that's comforting. The first part anyway.

and thats uncomforting. The second part anyway.

Enjoy your continued search for answers then.

actually, I've just about wrapped up my 911 research, we just have different conclusions.

No, I didn't say that at all.

ok, so then your saying I'm a liar then? I don't see what else that statement could mean. So what did i lie about?

No, not at all. I only addressed 1 point because I didn't feel like dealing with any others. Why not? Because it is a waste of time.

this is what you said.

You are comparing random thoughts that have come to your mind with a deliberately written and carefully worded speech by Bin Laden specifically about the September 11th attacks. And you think this has proven me wrong? If you can't inherently see the difference between these two things and how they are completely dissimilar, I doubt that anything I can say will ever convince you of my point of view.

Look at what i put in bold. Its pretty black and white, that statement shows you believe that i think that 1 point is what proved you wrong. I wonder what the true motive behind you not dealing with the others is.

If that is what you choose to believe, have at it.

okie dokie.

No, I have no interest in engaging in 9/11 conspiracy theory discussions any longer. I find them tedious and completely unrewarding.

thats fine, I hope i didn't drive you away, that wasn't my intention. Perhaps the weak arguements you presented are the cause.

It isn't very difficult. I'm confident that you can learn how if you put your mind to it.

Oh thanks for the advice, i guess i should have put my mind to it the first dozen times. Silly me.

[Q24]

1) the neocons are concerned with the impending loss of American power and reduction on military spending

2)they as businessmen are also looking to benefit from an increase in profit in the arms industry

3)they come to power and decide they need to redress points 1) and 2)

4)looking at precedent they decide they need to create a false flag conspiracy to ready the american conciousness for an appetite for war

I don’t personally find 2) important - just a ‘fortunate’ by-product.

What’s the difference between a ‘multi-millionaire’ and a ‘multi-millionaire plus a few million’?

Also, if the above were in chronological order, I’d put 4) before 3)

6) arrange for a group of predominantly saudi arabian civillians to hijack a number of planes,even though their plans ultimately do not involve an attack on saudi arabia

A separate note on this point. Were there any Afghan or Iraqi assets available and willing to work directly for U.S. interests? Doesn’t it make more sense in context of a false flag that agents are found to be from a country that is a U.S. ally and stood to gain from the ‘War on Terror’? Doesn’t the fact explain why the hijackers received assistance from a Saudi government agent?

If anything, this point favours existence of a false flag operation.

If you were one of the conspirators and that plan was floated across the table,would the response be " Well given what is at stake I cannot think of a less convoluted,less risk adverse,more reasonable operation"

For example… ??

The attack had to be attributed to terrorists (a state sponsored attack wouldn’t have made sense or allowed a widespread response), on a large and permanent enough scale to support a long ‘War on Terror’ (sufficient to replace the Cold War threat) and big enough that people would be hesitant to doubt.

I don’t see that the plan settled on was convoluted, overly risk adverse or unreasonable.

It was failsafe so much as can be. The background story was in place, most of the evidence would be destroyed during the attack, it left relatively few leads, those who became the hijackers would not be talking, on the surface there was little to question.

Where the plan did perhaps encounter problems and/or leave evidence (many of the issues put forward by the truth movement as indication of a false flag) these are excused over and over as natural, coincidental or irrelevant events. Those in power knew they could put forward any semi-legitimate explanation and with media backing it would be accepted by most of the public.

Just look at the cover story set here in case it were required: -

“For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.”

~President Bush, Oct. 31, 2006

Why did Bush come out with the statement at that time?

Because the truth movement had just hit the mainstream…

Not only had Loose Change gone viral throughout the preceding year which increased public awareness, but qualified figures were stepping into the debate - architect Richard Gage had founded AE911T earlier in 2006 and BYU physicist Steven Jones had also just released his paper on the WTC collapses.

In response, those behind the attack set the story that one of the alleged 9/11 masterminds had “planned attacks” whereby “explosives” were placed at “high” points in buildings. Now, had any evidence of demolition been introduced that NIST could not provide some semblance of explanation for… it’s ok, terrorists planted the bombs that brought down the WTC buildings.

You know most people would have swallowed it whole.

One day the nature of 9/11 will be accepted as self-evident but now, even 10 years on, there are far too many people unwilling or unable to see what’s right before their eyes - it is the usual way of things - perhaps this is the biggest reason of all it was known the plan would not have an adverse effect on those responsible.

[booNyzarC]

It isn't very difficult. I'm confident that you can learn how if you put your mind to it.

Oh thanks for the advice, i guess i should have put my mind to it the first dozen times. Silly me.

Sure thing. If you manage to figure it out to the point that I can actually differentiate your statements from mine and see some actual context without having to go back and hunt several pages, I just might respond to the rest of it. As I said, it really isn't that difficult. Practice makes perfect.

Cheers.

[Wandering]

The buildings collapsed due to structural damage and eventually failure due to the fires. That fact has now been determined in my own mind.

Fixed your sentence for you buddy.

Now, there are 9/11 comspiracist who are now backing away from the demolition theory.

There are? They must also be in your mind, I sure don't see anyone posting in here that says that. A vain attempt to sway newcomers to the argument I think 'Oh people are backing away from the demolition theory? Musn't be true then!!'.

Nice try

[skyeagle409]

Fixed your sentence for you buddy.

Not just in my own mind, but in the mind of Mr. Reality.

There are?

"Loose Change," has been moving its loose change around a bit when presented with the evidence. In fact, I've presented that fact in one of my links.

[Belial]

Accept the facts and believe no one.

[psychoticmike]

Sure thing. If you manage to figure it out to the point that I can actually differentiate your statements from mine and see some actual context without having to go back and hunt several pages, I just might respond to the rest of it. As I said, it really isn't that difficult. Practice makes perfect.

Cheers.

you know which statements are mine and which are yours, it really isn't hard to tell. Unless your blind. Its just another excuse to dodge my response. Evidently you would like people to believe that a simple mistake equals stupidity.

Now, lets be real. Do I seriously need to go back and redo my whole post? I will if you'll actually respond to all my points this time instead of throwing up a straw man. You did mention your not interested in the 911 threads anymore, so maybe its just a waste of my time.

[turbonium]

The buildings collapsed due to structural damage and eventually failure due to the fires. That fact has now been determined.

Just the opposite. The collapses have now been determined to be CD's/

if explosives are not properly placed nor proper preparation is done before explosives are placed, then you are not going to get the WTC buidlings to collapse.

You keep avoiding the inherent contradiction here, so I'll keep bringing it up until you answer for it.

By saying that explosives need specific, proper placement to collapse the towers, you're really saying a collapse requires properly placed explosives to cause failure of all the key structural supports.

This method is always used by experts in CD. In essence, the qualified professionals in highrise demolition make for the 'demolition' of your argument (that the towers were non-CD collapses).

Either you don't need to remove even one of the many points that EVERY CD EXPERT WOULD REMOVE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE COST, OR HOW MUCH TIME....

OR, you DO need to remove these key supports,

Which is it then? Are you going to agree with all these CD experts? Or do you claim these experts are morons wasting so much time and money?

You have to choose one. But I expect you'll keep on avoiding the problem entirely, as usual.

[booNyzarC]

you know which statements are mine and which are yours, it really isn't hard to tell. Unless your blind. Its just another excuse to dodge my response. Evidently you would like people to believe that a simple mistake equals stupidity.

Now, lets be real. Do I seriously need to go back and redo my whole post? I will if you'll actually respond to all my points this time instead of throwing up a straw man. You did mention your not interested in the 911 threads anymore, so maybe its just a waste of my time.

If you made the effort to organize your response in a more legible format, yes I would take the time to respond. And if you don't, well, at least take comfort in the fact that I think you have one of the coolest avatars on the forum.

By the way, dropping your attitude would go a long way too.

Cheers.

Edit: Typo.

Edited November 19, 2011 by booNyzarC

[psychoticmike]

The best chance of that at the moment is getting Ron Paul into office: -

He has flatly distanced himself from ‘conspiracy theories’ and the 9/11 truth movement (whether that’s a necessary smokescreen to boost his chances I don’t know) but has said, “I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever… ”

And as seen in the clip above, he appears open to a new 9/11 investigation.

I agree. Imo, hes the only candidate who will actually listen to the people. Btw in that other thread a while back, I wasn't trying to imply you were lying, its just you never know where someones trying to lead you. I agree with most of your posts, your a great contributor despite the critics.

[psychoticmike]

If you made the effort to organize your response in a more legible format, yes I would take the time to respond.

better? ok, I'll redo that post tomorrow. I'm not sure where you are, but where i'm at its 1:45am and i have a family function tomorrow, technically today.

And if you don't, well, at least take comfort in the fact that I think you have one of the coolest avatars on the forum.

thank you, nice youtube links you got there LOL

By the way, dropping your attitude would go a long way too.

what can i say, i treat others how they treat me.

[Holmesian]

I don’t personally find 2) important - just a ‘fortunate’ by-product.

What’s the difference between a ‘multi-millionaire’ and a ‘multi-millionaire plus a few million’?

Also, if the above were in chronological order, I’d put 4) before 3)

A separate note on this point. Were there any Afghan or Iraqi assets available and willing to work directly for U.S. interests? Doesn’t it make more sense in context of a false flag that agents are found to be from a country that is a U.S. ally and stood to gain from the ‘War on Terror’? Doesn’t the fact explain why the hijackers received assistance from a Saudi government agent?

If anything, this point favours existence of a false flag operation.

For example… ??

The attack had to be attributed to terrorists (a state sponsored attack wouldn’t have made sense or allowed a widespread response), on a large and permanent enough scale to support a long ‘War on Terror’ (sufficient to replace the Cold War threat) and big enough that people would be hesitant to doubt.

I don’t see that the plan settled on was convoluted, overly risk adverse or unreasonable.

To be honest I can't see how the plan cannot be seen as ridiculously convoluted,overly risk adverse or unreasonable, for the reasons I have already noted. To me that seems self evident, but I appreciate you take a different view. Also I cannot fathom why you would choose deliberately hijackers predominantly nationals from one of your few allies in the region, if the idea is to engender a zeitgest in the american public for war in that region.Again we differ on this and I don't think there is much point labouring it.

You ask, I think in your post, if I can give an example of a less convolted and less risk adverse plan than sacrificing thousands of your own people,employing foreign terrorists to hijack four planes, switch those planes mid flight, fly them into iconic buildings, but also plant explosives in those buildings as well, as well as in building 7,which will surely leave traces of explosives but hope no one notices, hope the planes are not shot down or the terrorists are overcome by the passengers, so that we can launch an attack on a nation such s Iraq which is not linked with the specific terrorist group we are framing for this event ( in fact who hate each other). I do not claim to be a strategic mastermind, but yes, at a stretch I think I can come up with a less convoluted and less risky plan than that one.

[Q24]

Also I cannot fathom why you would choose deliberately hijackers predominantly nationals from one of your few allies in the region…

How do you know there was a choice?

You ask, I think in your post, if I can give an example of a less convolted and less risk adverse plan… yes, at a stretch I think I can come up with a less convoluted and less risky plan than that one.

For example… ?

…than sacrificing thousands of your own people,employing foreign terrorists to hijack four planes, switch those planes mid flight, fly them into iconic buildings, but also plant explosives in those buildings as well, as well as in building 7,which will surely leave traces of explosives but hope no one notices, hope the planes are not shot down or the terrorists are overcome by the passengers…

I’m still not seeing how the risk could not be mitigated. You suggest there’s this huge unassailable risk but are not being specific. What specific element of the operation was “ridiculously convoluted, overly risk adverse or unreasonable” and how? I can’t respond without knowing what you’re aiming at.

The demolition setup for example - there was no chance for this to be uncovered as it would have been carried out under guise of legitimate refurbishment works to the fireproofing and/or steelwork. If this were carried out in the elevator shafts it’s not like there would be anyone passing by to walk-in on the operation. Once the demolition materials were set, they would be unnoticeable inside the profile of the ‘I’ columns and/or behind drywall.

Where is the insurmountable risk?

[skyeagle409]

The demolition setup for example - there was no chance for this to be uncovered as it would have been carried out under guise of legitimate refurbishment works to the fireproofing and/or steelwork.

False!

The buildings collapsed only at the points of impacts, which had nothing to do with explosives. Do you really think that explosives could be pre-planted and no one would notice? Not even the building inspectors? Not even those who issue building permits for any work on the WTC buildings? There is no way to predict where the aircraft would be struck and then, plant explosives at the floors where the collapses began. Look at the videos and note that no explosives were detonated when the aircraft struck nor afterwards. No detonation wires nor blast caps were found in either wreckage nor were there any evidence that explosives were used.

[booNyzarC]

To be honest I can't see how the plan cannot be seen as ridiculously convoluted,overly risk adverse or unreasonable, for the reasons I have already noted. To me that seems self evident, but I appreciate you take a different view. Also I cannot fathom why you would choose deliberately hijackers predominantly nationals from one of your few allies in the region, if the idea is to engender a zeitgest in the american public for war in that region.Again we differ on this and I don't think there is much point labouring it.

You ask, I think in your post, if I can give an example of a less convolted and less risk adverse plan than sacrificing thousands of your own people,employing foreign terrorists to hijack four planes, switch those planes mid flight, fly them into iconic buildings, but also plant explosives in those buildings as well, as well as in building 7,which will surely leave traces of explosives but hope no one notices, hope the planes are not shot down or the terrorists are overcome by the passengers, so that we can launch an attack on a nation such s Iraq which is not linked with the specific terrorist group we are framing for this event ( in fact who hate each other). I do not claim to be a strategic mastermind, but yes, at a stretch I think I can come up with a less convoluted and less risky plan than that one.

You have a masterful way with words Holmesian. Very well said.