The great 9/11 magic trick

[UM-Bot]

What if what we were told of 9/11 was a total lie? What if what we saw with our eyes on television that black Tuesday was a carefully planned illusion? Maybe the world was being deceived and purposely moved in a certain direction for the evil purpose of planting the seeds of WAR? Relatively few people in the general public knew at the time of John Kennedy's assassination that there was a large conspiracy surrounding the death of this beloved president. Back then, who questioned the idea of the lone gunman? It took decades for people to finally come around and understand that a large conspiracy was involved. It is somewhat comforting to know that there are people questioning the story we are told concerning the tragic events of 9/11. It has not taken decades for some people to realize the media has been lying to us. Many aspects of 9/11 do not add up and will be explored here. The Internet has helped spread important information that you will never find on television or in the newspapers. People are waking up to the idea that 9/11 WAS NOT A TERRORIST ATTACK BY MIDDLE-EAST FANATICS!

Years before 9/11, there was the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. Do not be so sure you are aware of the true events behind the Oklahoma bombing. The patsies were already set up to take the fall long before the OK explosion. Tim McVeigh and friends were not the guilty bombers who killed that day at the federal building. They (the authorities) can make anyone confess to anything. They can make anyone do anything, if they so choose. They have their Manchurian Candidates robotized by MK-ULTRA methods. The real terrorists cleanly got away. From CONTACT: The Phoenix Project, April 21, 1998:

OK CITY BOMBING REVISITED; TRUTH CONTRADICTS MEDIA LIES.

'The truth remains the truth, no matter what mind-controlling disinformation the media tries to beat into our heads to the contrary. This should make any American with a functioning mind and soul, mad as hell.'

The following is a letter to Senator Trent Lott dated July 30, 1998:

Dear Senator Lott:

The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building...WAS NOT CAUSED SOLELY by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of 4 demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level...

If the OK Bombing was the result of a fertilizer bomb, as the mass media has told us, then a POISONOUS CLOUD OF YELLOW AMMONIA would have formed all around the devastated federal building. The ammonia cloud would have been visible; it would have smelled and it would have been poisonous. No one could have entered the building right after the explosion unless they had gas masks. This is a physical and chemical fact. People were filmed running into the building immediately after the blast. Where was the yellow cloud of ammonia? A group of scientists appeared on C-SPAN and told the public about this ammonia-contradiction. They were never seen in the media again. The actual Oklahoma bomb seems more like a sophisticated, CIA detonation-device than a primitive-homemade job

There were reports on the news that mentioned 'sophisticated device' was used. The public has also forgotten reports that multiple bombs were found at the federal building. 'Got defused bombs' was aired on the news. The Oklahoma blast was certainly not the result of a simple, fertilizer bomb in a truck. This is mentioned as a prelude to 9/11. Probably...the same experts used to pull off the Oklahoma blast could have also been called in to help create the WTC disaster.

The American Free Press (For Life and Liberty...Against the New World Order) is one of the few underground newspapers left. You are not going to read the truth and get the real story in regular newspapers. In the January 28, 2002 issue, the Free Press headline read:

FORMER TOP GERMAN SPY SAYS U.S. WRONG ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11.

A top German spook refutes the official version of what happened on Sept. 11, questioning why hasn't Congress called for a special inquiry to investigate what really occurred on that terrible day? He believes the attacks had to be expertly planned and that only a state-run intelligence service could have pulled off such a mission. (We find out that Osama is 'bankrupt' and could never have executed such a huge undertaking)

'Israel is protected in the German media (as well as American) in which any criticism of the Jewish state is stifled...However, the Israeli agenda has gone forward as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks. THE ARABS ARE OUR FOES is the message behind the brainwashing being done by the U.S. government and the unquestioning mass media.'

The New Yorker and Michael Moore reported:

Immediately after 9/11...a Saudi jet was permitted, by the U.S. Government, to go around the country and pick up members of the Bin Laden family. They were escorted out of the U.S. to safety overseas. At a time when millions of red-blooded Americans were not allowed in the sky, the rich Bin Ladens were protected and given very special treatment. If Osama was Public Enemy #1, then his family in America should have been at least highly interrogated. They should have been pumped for information on Osama. Instead, the Bin Ladens were transported by air to a safe haven while Americans were the ones interrogated at airports.

Osama was a large CONTRIBUTOR to the political campaign of George W. Osama helped elect Bush! The media tells us that Bush and Bin Laden are mortal enemies. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are best buddies; pawns in a deadly game perpetrated upon the planet. Osama was a CIA asset. He was trained and funded by the CIA. He was put into power by the CIA.

From CONTACT Newspaper: dated September 19, 2001. Headlines: 'GOVERNMENT SPONSORED TERRORISM: INNOCENT ARE ALWAYS CASUALTIES.'

'...find out how many of the major players were present at their offices when those planes hit...just as with the Oklahoma City debacle, there will be revealing evidence by just checking who was at their desk on Tuesday morning...'

'Note that the WHOLE of the buildings were deliberately set in detonation as to make very sure the whole of both would be totally destroyed...YOU SAW IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, CITIZENS. THOSE BUILDINGS WERE BROUGHT DOWN EXACTLY LIKE ANY OTHER BUILDING DEMOLITION - ACCORDING TO A PLAN - AND EXACTLY LIKE THE FEDERAL BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY.'

'According to a Pakistan newspaper, Bin Laden himself denied involvement in the plane attacks on Tuesday...Believe it because when you have this type of person with this magnificent show-and-tell - they will take credit IF THEY DID IT.'

Everyone should purchase the DVD and closely study what is called 'The Fireman's Video.' It is the Zapruder Film of 9/11. The Naudet Brothers, two French filmmakers, were on the streets of N.Y...September 11 making a documentary about the city's fire-fighters. While on Canal Street, the crew was distracted by a low-flying plane. They quickly turned their attention to what was allegedly American Airlines Flight 11. For a few seconds, they caught on film the impact of the crash on the North Tower (WTC1). This filming of the exact moment of impact is not what the Bush administration expected or wanted. The Naudet Brothers were professional filmmakers and captured the crash on broadcast-quality tape.

When seen in normal speed, you first might think there is not much to the tape. But, slow the film down and freeze-frame it. Inspect each of the frames. You will discover that a brief flash of light emits from the front. This occurs BEFORE the plane strikes the building. This is Leonard Spencer's observation: '...I'll tell you what I see. Immediately before the plane strikes it fires a missile that blows a hole in the building's facade. This is the cause of the flash. The plane then begins to disappear neatly into this hole, leaving no wing impressions. Just before it disappears however it fires two more missiles from somewhere near the tail. One goes to the left, one to the right (& up a bit) and it is the blast holes from these three separate missiles that form the great gash across the building.'

Leonard Spencer has created an extremely informative web-site called 'The Incredible 9/11 Evidence We've All been Overlooking.' You can download parts of the Fireman's Video and analyze it frame by frame yourself.

'The plane that hit the North Tower was not American Airlines Flight 11. It was not a Boeing 767. It was a custom-built military plane carrying these missiles that created an impression of the plane crash without leaving any wreckage. In order for it precisely to strike the correct part of the tower (in line with the bomb already planted in the east wall) it must have been flown REMOTELY using cruiser navigation...The 'Conspiracy Theorists' have got it dead right this time. The true Flight 11, 175, 77 and 93 were indeed substituted with other (smaller) planes when the transponders were switched off. Someone hijacked the hijackers to make sure the job was done properly.'

9/11 was a MAGICK trick; spelled 'Magick' since our world's leaders think so highly of warlock Aleistor Crowley. The disaster could also be a MAJIC trick, pulled off with Majestic 12 (James Bond) secrecy. A slow-motion analysis will expose the sleight of hand. DISTRACTION is the key. Anything can seem to be real if we are made to look at the wrong place and not see what is truly going on behind the curtain. If an idea is hourly pounded into our brains by the media, then any agenda from the authorities can control us.

Flight 175, the plane that hit the South Tower or WTC2, is also part of the Big Lie. There is a very famous photograph of it just a second before it strikes the second tower. The photo has been on the front pages of many newspapers, in magazines and on countless web-sites. It is the defining moment of that dark day and, at the same time, one of the most incriminating images also. (See the later comments concerning the documentary 'In Plane Site').

If we look closely, we can observe something on the underside of the plane that should not be there. The 'silvery lump' casts shadows and there is even what appears to be a 'nozzle' on the front. This is not standard issue of any American airlines. This was a missile or ignition-device attached to a smaller plane. 9/11 was not a hijacking by Middle-East terrorists. This was done by our very own government; sanctioned and financed by a secret World Conspiracy in order to send us to war!

'Not only is the anomalous device on the plane's underside clearly visible, it is clear too that, just as the plane's nose strikes the building, the nozzle of this device FIRES A JET OF FLAME.'

Both planes were supposed to be 767s. Both were flying from Boston to Los Angeles and both had, supposedly, been in the air for around 45 minutes before the crash. Why were the explosions so different? The first crash did not produce a huge fireball. The second produced an incredible, yellow fireball and caused much more damage than the first. The first plane seemed to have fired missiles. The relatively small explosion was due to the fact that little fuel was on board. This makes no sense for an aircraft that was supposed to fly coast to coast. The second plane was 'rich' in fuel. Several eyewitnesses reported the strong smell of fuel after the second crash. The anomalous object on the second plane was probably an 'ignition device' rather than a missile. This ignited a fully fueled aircraft and caused the amazing fireball. The explosions of both planes should have been the same, but they were not.

These were not the planes that took off from Boston on 9/11. They were smaller. Examine the hole in the towers after the crashes. Measure the length of the damaged area. A real Boeing 767 has a larger wingspan and would have created a larger hole. It is more likely, believe it or not, they were CIA (remote-controlled) aircraft in an operation prepared well in advance and with amazing precision.

Numerous witnesses stated on the news that the 9/11 planes were not commercial airlines. They were described as grey planes or a 'cargo plane.' Mark Burnback of Fox News sticks to his story that he saw 'no windows on sides' and that this was 'not a normal flight.'

'The incidents were timed and sequenced to ensure that this was the case. The first crash (which we were definitely not meant to see) brought the media to the WTC and ensured plenty of cameras were trained on the towers in time for the next crash around 15 minutes later. So we all see the second crash IN ALL ITS GLORY from every conceivable angle. Spectacular, isn't it?...It was a carefully planned media spectacle. Remember how we were practically force-fed these images for two whole days, so everyone saw them hundreds of times? This is invaluable propaganda and brainwashing.'

Here is a quote from a posted article called 'Was 9/11 An Inside Job?' (The conspiracy) ...is a much harder case to prove than 9/11 happened because of Arabs using box cutters while operating out of caves in Afghanistan...no one wants to believe that the government had any involvement...but not only has it been shown that they have the direct means, motives, and clear benefits to gain from the event, but also does all the evidence point towards them, and directly to a much higher involvement.'

'The government's official explanations of 9/11 are full of omissions and distortions as well as many problems associated with the 9/11 Commission Report. The Bush Administration tried to block the creation of the 9/11 Commission. Then, the Bush Administration appointed people to the Commission. Their first choice was Henry Kissinger. That's like choosing your own jury in your own murder trial.'

Bush, Cheney and Condoleeza Rice refused to testify under oath even though the 9/11 Commission had the power to subpoena them. Someone did not want a thorough investigation into the events of September 11. This is not unlike the bogus Warren Commission with their absurd investigation into the killing of JFK. The highest officials are not going to reveal that THEY ARE THE GUILTY PARTIES INVOLVED.

World Trade Building 7, which fell hours after the Twin Towers, was never hit by aircraft. We are made to believe that 'small fires' were responsible for its destruction. Supposedly, it was the terrorist attacks that resulted in the demise of Building 7. Then, why did the Lease Holder, Larry Silverstein, admit ON FILM that Building 7 was PULLED? On a PBS interview, he stated we 'pulled it. They made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.' 'Pulled' is a professional demolition term for the collapse of a building with explosives. It takes weeks, or even months, to properly prepare for such an operation. Yet, Building 7 came down that Tuesday in September. The charges were already set well in advance. Never before had a steel framed building ever fallen because of fires. Fire cannot take down a steel structure.

Instead of telling us the real story behind the demolition of Building 7, the mass media gave us this from CBS News: '(WTC) Building 7 collapsed...a 42-story building, weakened by the devastation that had occurred earlier today.'

The government claims that the 'pancake theory' was why the buildings fell as they did. We were told the steel struts slowly weakened because of the high temperatures from the burning fuel. Mixed with the air's water molecules, the fires would not be hot enough to melt steel. The official explanations are far from credible.

The WTC towers were brought down in a controlled demolitions (like the Oklahoma Federal Building). Bombs were already in place at the perfect points of support. Janitors and various firemen reported hearing 'bomb-like' explosions. They said on film that they heard a series of explosions: 'boom, boom, boom' on the floors as each were demolished in sequence. One firefighter said over the air: 'as if they were planted to take down a building.'

The American Free Press published PHOTOGRAPHS of explosions coming from the lower floors of the WTC. These bombs had nothing to do with the above plane damage. Obviously, the bombs were already set in place and we see them go off. The first 9/11 newscasts mentioned various people that heard EXPLOSIONS. Days later, the news never revisited the idea of bombs at the WTC.

Maybe the most amazing and clear evidence that we were conned by a great illusion that day, has to do with the Pentagon. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that an airplane, Flight 77, ever hit the Pentagon! The government claims the plane completely vaporized...which is scientifically impossible. The Pentagon's thick guard walls would have slowed it down, not disintegrated a massive plane. Something of the wreckage should have remained intact: the tail section, wings, engines, anything! There was no incredible fireball that could have produced the necessary temperatures causing the total absence of airplane.

The Pentagon's facade fell and it merely seemed as if there was more damage than there really was. If you see the early news reports, before the front fell, the real damage is only a SMALL HOLE. Apparently, a missile struck the Pentagon and formed the small hole; possibly a missile not unlike the one that brought down the famous Flight 800 some years ago.

The Pentagon is probably the most secure building on Earth. Many high-tech cameras are positioned on the 5-sided exterior. Why haven't they clearly shown us, on film, the plane coming in long before it crashed? Where is it? What they have shown us is BOOM, a quick blast...but there is no film of the approach of Flight 77.

On 9/11/01, CNN LIVE - BREAKING NEWS - AMERICA UNDER ATTACK aired the following report directly from the site of the Pentagon attack. Correspondent Jamie McIntyre was there among the debris and the burning walls and said:

'From my close up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere NEAR the Pentagon...The only PIECES left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and caused the sides to collapse...'

'Whatever hit the Pentagon on 9/11 made a hole several meters wide in the front wall between the first and second floors. It emerged 3 blocks later, leaving behind a perfectly round hole of about 2 and a half yards in diameter.' The original hole in the Pentagon was way too small. The hole was round and not the outline of a large, commercial airplane. The signs point to a cruise missile.

Another DVD that should be purchased, studied and passed around is 'In Plane Site' produced by the radio show: The Power Hour. The following is a quote by Dave vonKleist from the documentary:

'There's the Northwood Documents, that were released in 1961, in which the Joint Chiefs spelled out plans to attack their own ships, sink battleships, let off bombs and have terrorist attacks here in the United States to instill patriotism and raise anger against the Communists so that we could find an entry in the Cold War.'

The Power Hour documentary tells us that a 757 could not have caused the relatively little damage at the Pentagon. There are torn open offices with no burn damage. There should have been 8600 gallons of fuel that ignited in a tremendous fireball. The fires should have blazed for days and totally ruined that section of the Pentagon. That's not what happened. A 757 has a wingspan of 125 feet. The hole in the Pentagon was not large enough to accommodate such a plane.

'In Plane Site' shows us, frame by frame, that something is clearly attached to the bottom of the second plane in New York. Four cameras caught it and we see it slowed down from four different angles. The flash is to the right of the fuselage from what is probably an incendiary device. The THING on the undercarriage is right there, in plain view. Yet, we have been conditioned to not see it and believe the usual news reports.

This was SHOW BUSINESS. 9/11 was trickery; an experiment in media manipulation. It was not terrorists with box cutters that created the flash just before the plane struck the building. Terrorists did not attach missile devices to the underside of the planes...unless you consider that we are the terrorists.

Let us assume...this unconventional, underground idea is true. The 9/11 planes were not the planes that took off from Boston as the story goes. There was NO ONE on board the planes that we saw crash into the towers just like the magician is not really sawed in half. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PEOPLE ON BOARD THE REAL FLIGHTS 11, 175, 77 AND 93? Where are the people?

If a Boeing 767, (Flight 93) did crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania...how do we explain the following report from WCPO TV, Channel 9 in Cincinnati? 9/11/01 11:43:57 AM. PLANE LANDS IN CLEVELAND; BOMB FEARED ABOARD. 'A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White...United identified the plane as Flight 93.' - Liz Forman. Which is the real Flight 93? The one that crashed in Shanksville or the one that landed in Cleveland?

The question remains: Wouldn't the real passengers have to be killed? Their living existence could blow apart the entire operation like Dorothy Kilgallen may have done to the JFK murder. (In the film 'Capricorn One,' our astronauts had to be sacrificed to keep the secret of a faked and failed mission). Were the innocent lives on board the 9/11 planes taken in this federally backed and bloody, military operation?

WorldNetDaily posted on 12/27/04 that RUMSFELD SAYS 9-11 PLANE 'SHOT DOWN' IN PENNSYLVANIA. During surprise Christmas Eve trip, Defense Secretary contradicts official story.

Do not believe the media. They are owned by the feds or federally owned corporations. Their secret job is to lie to you over the media. The media obeys the orders of the ruling fascists that own everything. This is the New Roman Empire. Why? (I have heard many ask the question WHY. My 'Man-Made Katrina' article was met with similar skepticism). Why would the authorities create wars and suffering and unleash this upon its own citizens? It is in the world's leader's best interest to do so. ORDER from CHAOS is the motto of Secret Societies that rule the planet from the shadows. In New York's case, 9/11 was created to send us to war and spread fear from a new enemy.

In the Constitution, it states that only if the United States is physically attacked first, within our borders, can we declare WAR. That is why the Pearl Harbor incident, killing many Americans, was created by the secret leaders during the 1940s. Churchill was in on the bombings and FDR had prior knowledge of the Japanese attack. They warned no one. World leaders at the time were all in on it. They wanted a World War; again conning and using the public; just as the ones on top highly profited by Crashing the Stock Market in 1929. WW2 would become a very profitable venture for the Powers That Be. Nothing is different today.

Look how many WAR movies were made before and after 9/11; too many. This is PROGRAMMING. The lousy, big-budget film 'Pearl Harbor' played in theaters just prior to 9/11. This is not a coincidence; this is by design; this is mass orchestration. We are being DIRECTED by television and films and most people are unaware of the manipulation. (Even the PATRIOTS suspiciously won the Super Bowl right after 9/11).

9/11 was done to create a new menace. If the United States does not have an enemy, we will create one! 9/11 was manufactured to begin a War for Oil in the Middle-East. Bush, and other Oil people, Cheney, Rice, Tony Blair and the Vatican sanction and finance wars - weaponry - and destruction. The U.S. and England created this war as we invade and take over Iraq for OIL and big business profits. Our troops have killed many, many innocent women and children in this insane war. When the Gulf War was fought, our soldiers were killed by American weapons we sold to them. If Middle-East countries have Weapons of Mass Destruction, then these are WMD that we sold to them. 'We must always have war' is another of their secret agendas.

Do not fall for the Majic Trick. If enough people get together and learn the truth...maybe the world could and would unite in peace with real democracy and liberty. We are a bit wiser now and, hopefully, should wake up from the soma cloud the media has put us in. Big Brother truly exists. They are slowly killing us. Or, will they do it more quickly? Will an atomic exchange be the next great and super, utter catastrophe in our future? Hypothetically, if that were to happen, the Powers That Be (the guilty parties) would surely come out as if they were the good guys. Their escape routes would already be planned as contingencies to save only themselves. LET'S WAKE UP!

[Immersive Writer]

Great article.

It's the most saddening thing i've ever experienced. A blinded mass of people. The average lifestyle of most Americans doesn't permit much room for "second guessing" in this matter. People go about in their frantic little lives, day by day and they think things such as this do not affect them, or do not affect their personal future to the extent they should take action against the lie. People also accept what they see, exactly like people watching a stage act magic show and then going home saying "Wow, i know magic isn't real.. but that trick was 'IMPOSSIBLE".

It's not impossible people. Far, far from it.

How much do you really care? How curious are you? Are you intelligent? Then find the facts yourselves. There is an ABUNDANCE of facts that simply "don't add up"! SO, SO many things that would at the very least make you have doubt in your mind, from good cause, that Sept. 11 was a LIE.

Get started:

www.SeeLooseChange.com

This is an extremely complicated matter. It would (in my opinion) take decades to find out every crooked plan that lead up to the events of 9/11.

The main point you need to leave with, after your great intake of information is simply this: Your government CAN and WILL decieve you for ANY reason, and it's been doing this for a great deal of time.

What can you do about it? Great question. I don't have that answer, it relies on you, and you alone.

[el midgetron]

Yo SaRuMaN, this site has rules about sighting your sources, don't make me report you. lol jk man. I am curious about where this was published tho.

While I am please to see this being considered "front page news", I am sort of disapointed at some of the points the author choose to included.

"The plane then begins to disappear neatly into this hole, leaving no wing impressions." - This isnt accurate to my observations.

I also am not to keen on the missles being fired prior to impact. However, even if I don't agree with some of the points, its good to see more main stream coverage.

Edited April 22, 2007 by el midgetron

[Jim88]

The fires in the World Trade Center wouldn't have to melt the supports to bring down the buildings. The microstructure of steel changes when heated above the critical temperature, about 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel melts at about 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel is not as strong when heated above the critical temperature. The supports could have failed due to overloading caused by a changed microstructure.

Also there was a lot of fuel burning in the World Trade Center. The more fuel you have burning the more heat your going to have. With all that fuel burning the fires could get hot enough to bring down the buildings. A house fire can get hot enough to melt metals. My brother is fireman. He was telling me how a house fire can get hot enough to melt metals.

The sounds people heard that they said sounded like explosions, could have been the sounds of the supports failing. When steel fails from overloading it makes a loud bang sound. Somebody who has never done any strength testing and doesn't know what steel sounds like when it fails could mistake that sound for an explosion.

The only thing about 9/11 that doesn't add up to me is how they knew it was Al Qaeda that did it so soon after the attack.

Edited April 22, 2007 by Jim88

[EmpressStarXVII]

What a great article, I actually read the entire thing .

[louie]

The movie of that article was on tv here recently. it gives some very good points and lots of footage analysis. u should watch it.

[Jim88]

Read this.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=1

It confirms some of the things I said above. It also shows how some of the other claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists are wrong.

[el midgetron]

The movie of that article was on tv here recently. it gives some very good points and lots of footage analysis. u should watch it.

What was its name and where/when did it air?

[louie]

What was its name and where/when did it air?

Unfortunatly i turned it on when it had started so i dident catch the name, but it sounds exactly the same as the post here. it aired on Finnish tv, maybe it was loose change. but it was about a controled demolition.

[Jim88]

Go to this site and scroll down to temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

From that you will see the combustion temperature of jet fuel (a fossil fuel) depends on the heating value, the stoichiometric air to fuel ratio, the heat capacity of fuel and air, and the air and fuel inlet temperatures.

[Fluffybunny]

It is a horribly saddening state of affairs to consider that our own government would kill it's citizens to get it's way, so it can go kill even more of its' citizens and other countries citizens.

We need to sweep everyone out of power and change the system...what we have now no longer works and is corrupt.

[Jim88]

It is a horribly saddening state of affairs to consider that our own government would kill it's citizens to get it's way, so it can go kill even more of its' citizens and other countries citizens.

We need to sweep everyone out of power and change the system...what we have now no longer works and is corrupt.

The US government didn't kill its own citizens. Those conspiracy theories aren't true. The "evidence" presented by conspiracy theorists doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

[Fluffybunny]

The US government didn't kill its own citizens. Those conspiracy theories aren't true. The "evidence" presented by conspiracy theorists doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

I disagree, there are many odd questions that remain unanswered. I am not an engineer, but a firefighter and have met many experienced and talented firefighters that were there on 9/11 in the buildings who experienced things that did not make sense and go against the governments story. I do not know to what extent if our government was involved, but the official story is not 100% truthful. You have your opinion and I have mine...

[Jim88]

I disagree, there are many odd questions that remain unanswered. I am not an engineer, but a firefighter and have met many experienced and talented firefighters that were there on 9/11 in the buildings who experienced things that did not make sense and go against the governments story. I do not know to what extent if our government was involved, but the official story is not 100% truthful. You have your opinion and I have mine...

Just because the government's story doesn't explain everything doesn't mean the government was behind 9/11. What proof is there that the government was behind any of it. The conspiracy theorists blame the government but they haven't provided any proof to support it. For example they claim the government planted demolition charges inside the World Trade Center. Assuming that were true, how do they know who planted the demolition charges? That's based on nothing more than speculation. The conspiracy theorists haven't even proven there were demolition charges in the world trade center. It is all based on rumor.

The government's explanation of what brought down the World Trade Center is scientifically sound. I am an engineer and it is consistant with what I know. It is supported by experts. What the conspiracy theorists are saying isn't supported by experts. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny. So I believe the government's story.

You probably saw the video of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center. I don't know how anyone could have missed it. It was all over television. Didn't that look like a commercial airliner to you? It sure looked like 767 to me. I've ridden on 767s. I know what they look like. The plane I saw crash into the World Trade Center was clearly a 767.

I think the government knew more than it admitted to knowing. It must have to know who was behind the attack so soon afterwards. They probably had intelligence and failed to take action to stop the attack. That just shows the government was inept. It doesn't mean it was behind the attack. Did tou ever think maybe the only thing the government is hiding is its own incompetence? There is evidence the government was incompetent, not that it was behind 9/11.

What did the firefighters tell you that didn't make sense and went against the government's story?

Edited April 22, 2007 by Jim88

[EmpressStarXVII]

Was there a reason given why Bush or Cheney refused to testify under oath to the commission? In all reality though, the commission report was just a way of shutting the public up if you ask me.

[bee]

This was a very thoughtful and detailed article SaRuMan...but I still don't believe it was an out and out conspiricy/inside job.

Yes' I admit, I don't WANT to believe it...but even with all the mountains of so called 'evidence' for it being an evil conspiricy...for if it was (a conspiricy)...the word evil could be used...something about the Con. Theory just doesn't ring true for me.

I was interested in the point that 'in the Constitution it states that only if the United States is physically attacked first, within our borders can we declare war.'.......even if an attack situation was fabricated for these purposes...public opinion could have been whipped up without the huge loss of life and destruction of such a prestigious building/s....and without such complicated, convoluted plans like planted bombs, plane attatchments etc..

I saw the destruction of the WTC etc as an embaracing humiliation for the US....why would they make an enemy seem so clever and successful? And what about the plane that came down over NY two weeks later? No-one ever talks about that. I think that the terrorists did that one as well. No-one talks about that incident. The goverment doesn't talk about it because it was yet more humiliation...the Con. theorists don't talk about it because it wouldn't 'fit in' with the con. theories.

If they (the govt/others) wanted to do a pretend attack to fit in with the constitution they could have done lots of other things...with less loss of life...less destruction...less humiliation.

Like, for instance...ummmmm...smaller private planes with Korans and photos of Saddam banging into a few runways at major airports........or Arab 'plants' firing missiles from various locations at semi-important buildings. I could think of better potential plots with a bit more time probably...

Regarding the constitution...I'm not sure how this was applied regarding Vietnam?

One final point....he said 'the US and England created this war'....did he mean the US and Britain?

I am more inclined to agree with the quote below.....

[i think the government knew more than it admitted to knowing. It must have to know who was behind the attack so soon afterwards. They probably had intelligence and failed to take action to stop the attack. That just shows the government was inept. It doesn't mean it was behind the attack. Did tou ever think maybe the only thing the government is hiding is its own incompetence? There is evidence the government was incompetent, not that it was behind 9/11.

Edited April 22, 2007 by bee

[Jim88]

Was there a reason given why Bush or Cheney refused to testify under oath to the commission? In all reality though, the commission report was just a way of shutting the public up if you ask me.

I don't know why Bush and Cheney refused to testify. Maybe the government is covering something up, like its own incompetence.

Some of the things 9/11 conspiracy theorists are saying aren't even consistant with what millions of people saw on television. They claim the planes that crashed into the world trade center weren't commercial airliners. The one I saw clearly was. If there were really missiles fired from the second plane then how come I didn't see them? I didn't see any missiles.

I don't know what else I can tell you. Those conspiracy theories don't hold up under scrutiny. They aren't true. I could find websites that disprove everything he has written above. They are out there. If you looked then you could find them.

The US government isn't perfect. The people who run it aren't perfect. Some of them are scoundrels. Our government does have too much power. But, that doesn't mean the government is behind terrorist attacks on its own people. I don't believe our government is that bad.

[Fluffybunny]

What did the firefighters tell you that didn't make sense and went against the government's story?

Several of the firefighters that were in the building and around the building told me that they heard explosions that sounded like high energy explosives going off over their heads...mind you these are guys that had been staged on duty during building demolitions just in case anything went wrong and were familiar with the sounds of those types of explosives compared to the explosions of kerosene, and lower energy fuels. As firefighters we get to see a lot of things burn and blowup. I have seen arsonists that used what was later found to be rocket fuel to burn a store down. I can't imagine with how busy and experienced the firefighters were that are in NY that they could be confused by the sounds of basically kerosene exploding versus high energy explosions. Those guys knew the difference and had experienced both many times. These guys swore on their honor that they felt explosives; high energy explosives. I also read transcripts that the firefighters near the fire floor stated that the fires could be worked with a handline or two; which is a 1 and 3/4 inch hoseline that runs about 100 gallons per minute in a taller building like that... The fact that these guys were willing to work the fire means it wasn't that bad.

Our turnout geat is meant to protect us at 500 degrees for five minutes. we can stay in lower temperatures for much longer. What was said about the fires tells me that the fires were not as bad as was claimed. The building had fire breaks everywhere.

So, I am not a building engineer, but we are trained to understand the buildings that are in the area we take care of; the fire departments trained for mock fires in those building many times. They were trained on how the building was designed; warning signs, what types of steel and building materials were used where...

Does that mean that those firefighters could calculate directional load forces on each beam on the fly? no, of course not; but the firefighters did know when to get the heck out, and when things were too bad to fight a fire from a given position. They were knowledgable, as well as the knowledge of the command on the ground that had very good understanding of the building.

My point is that they told me that the fire could have been fought, that it wasn't too hot. They told me they heard explosives, high energy explosions, not pockets of kerosene igniting, or colapsing floors.

I could go on, but I am just trying to say that there are things that happened that don't make sense compared to what the official story is. I don't know who was involved, why, or how and I don't believe crazy new world order ideas and such, but I do know something was wrong.

[EmpressStarXVII]

The US government isn't perfect. The people who run it aren't perfect. Some of them are scoundrels. Our government does have too much power. But, that doesn't mean the government is behind terrorist attacks on its own people. I don't believe our government is that bad.

What about operation northwoods and the tonkin incident? I think our government is quite capable and willing to attack its civilians for a cause they see as just.

[Jim88]

My point is that they told me that the fire could have been fought, that it wasn't too hot. They told me they heard explosives, high energy explosions, not pockets of kerosene igniting, or colapsing floors.

I could go on, but I am just trying to say that there are things that happened that don't make sense compared to what the official story is. I don't know who was involved, why, or how and I don't believe crazy new world order ideas and such, but I do know something was wrong.

I don't know what they heard. I don't know what high energy explosives sound like. So I can't say.

I know when steel fails from overloading it goes with a bang. I don't know if it sounds anything like high energy explosives though.

That's what a lot of those conspiracy theories are getting at the New World Order conspiracy theory. I used to read sites like the American Free Press that push the New World Order conspiracy theory. They just spread fear. I don't believe it's real either.

[Sable]

What is the Media today? How big is the Industry of "Entertainment" in our lives? Western Culture thrives on the entertainment machine that demands the cosumer to invest billions of dollars a year. For what? a 2 hr+ DVD movie and Video game virtual reality, to alter reality at that price and the sought after beloved MP3player.

Point I'm making, is the center Stage of our Information era. That Power of the Press has mutated into a useful tool for the control of the people. Control what they are meant to see and know.

[el midgetron]

Was there a reason given why Bush or Cheney refused to testify under oath to the commission? In all reality though, the commission report was just a way of shutting the public up if you ask me.

Absolutely, all the Report did was repeat the same information we were told from day one. Most of which was told to us within hours of the attacks. And Britian didn't even investigate 7/7.

I saw the destruction of the WTC etc as an embaracing humiliation for the US....why would they make an enemy seem so clever and successful?

Its not that they created Al Qaeda and let them loose to turn around and bite us. They created something which is largely an illusion and they control what is real.

I saw the destruction of the WTC etc as an embaracing humiliation for the US....why would they make an enemy seem so clever and successful? And what about the plane that came down over NY two weeks later? No-one ever talks about that. I think that the terrorists did that one as well. No-one talks about that incident. theorists don't talk about it because it wouldn't 'fit in' with the con. theories.

I think its been forgotten by most. Alot of people don't ever remeber that wtc7 collapsed. As for the theorist, there is no reason it couldn't be part of the inside job theory. You are right tho, it isnt talked about much. All I really know about it was what I saw on Tv when it happened. In context with the inside job theory, it could have been any number of things. It could have been rouge elements of one of their puppet organizations or it could have been a black op with another purpose. But it also could be just what we were told.

You don't think it fits with the conspiracy theories but you yourself are questioning what the government is telling you. I don't really know much about that incident. What makes you think terrorists did it and why do you think the government would lie about it?

If they (the govt/others) wanted to do a pretend attack to fit in with the constitution they could have done lots of other things...with less loss of life...less destruction...less humiliation.

I have heard people also question why if those behind this wanted to create a cause to use a justification, then why not do something which would have killed even more people? (in theory giving them even more clout to go do what they want). When you look at it though, if it was an inside job then the attacks served their purpose. What we experianced that day was tramatic. If it had been less humiliating it might not have galvanized the public as it did.

I don't think it had to do with sliding around the constitution. We werent attack before the first Gluf war and we never declared war on Iraq during it either. If this had been the only purpose, it would have only required a much smaller incident. Declaring a war on "terrorism" has done alot more than take us to Afganistan and Iraq.

Regarding the constitution...I'm not sure how this was applied regarding Vietnam?

That would be the Gulf of Tonkin. And just like the first gulf war, the United states never technically decalered war on Vietnam.

Some of the things 9/11 conspiracy theorists are saying aren't even consistant with what millions of people saw on television. They claim the planes that crashed into the world trade center weren't commercial airliners. The one I saw clearly was. If there were really missiles fired from the second plane then how come I didn't see them? I didn't see any missiles.

I havent seen any missles either. I actualy mentioned in my first post I was sort of disapointed to see things like this in the article. Who knows though, maybe you and I havent seen the right footage yet? But the use of missles as describe in the article doesn't make sense to me.

While there is only one official story, there are meny conspiracy theories. The one thing theorist agree on it that the official story doesnt add up.

What is the Media today? How big is the Industry of "Entertainment" in our lives? Western Culture thrives on the entertainment machine that demands the cosumer to invest billions of dollars a year. For what? a 2 hr+ DVD movie and Video game virtual reality, to alter reality at that price and the sought after beloved MP3player.

Point I'm making, is the center Stage of our Information era. That Power of the Press has mutated into a useful tool for the control of the people. Control what they are meant to see and know.

I agree. There is alot of things going on that never make it to the major news sources. Theres a war going on and the media broadcasts hours and hours of fluff like Anna Nichol Smith. Its entertainment and nothing more. You, have a dead sex symbol and custody battle over a million dollar baby. It might be lurid and dramatic but how much of an impact does it really have on any of us? Its just entertainment to occupy us.

Edited April 23, 2007 by el midgetron

[bee]

[i can't imagine with how busy and experienced the firefighters were that are in NY that they could be confused by the sounds of basically kerosene exploding versus high energy explosions. Those guys knew the difference and had experienced both many times. These guys swore on their honor that they felt explosives; high energy explosives. I also read transcripts that the firefighters near the fire floor stated that the fires could be worked with a handline or two; which is a 1 and 3/4 inch hoseline that runs about 100 gallons per minute in a taller building like that... The fact that these guys were willing to work the fire means it wasn't that bad.

I wonder if (IF) there were 'extra' explosions...un-connected to the impact of the planes...whether the terrorists themselves had these planted (or wore them?)...to ensure that the buildings were brought down? Maybe terrorists did the same in wtc7...and this building had been a hijacked plane target, that didn't happen on the day?

[You don't think it fits with the conspiracy theories but you yourself are questioning what the government is telling you. I don't really know much about that incident. What makes you think terrorists did it and why do you think the government would lie about it?

I'm not stupid....(hopefully)...I do question what the goverment is telling me...reading between the (political) lines is interesting. Reading between the (conspiricy theory) lines is also interesting.

Re. the plane coming down over NY two weeks after 9/11....I think that it is too close time-wise to be a co-incidence. I think the government would lie about it ...brush it under the carpet...because to admit that after the carnage of 9/11 for the 'enemy' to succeed AGAIN would be yet again very humiliating.

Here's a thought for you...what if extra exlosives were planted by terrorists in the Twin Towers and wct7...to ensure the buildings went down....unless the plane that crashed into fields was destined for wtc7....perhaps there was a jihad terrorist determined to 'do the business'...not let his 'brothers'.. down....and he managed somehow to create the 2 week later air disaster...

I can remember thinking what a horrible, horrible thing it was that fire fighters lived in the area where that 2 week later plane came down...and thinking that after all they went through on 9/11 they didn't deserve this additional nightmare!

[Jim88]

I wonder if (IF) there were 'extra' explosions...un-connected to the impact of the planes...whether the terrorists themselves had these planted (or wore them?)...to ensure that the buildings were brought down? Maybe terrorists did the same in wtc7...and this building had been a hijacked plane target, that didn't happen on the day?

I'm not stupid....(hopefully)...I do question what the goverment is telling me...reading between the (political) lines is interesting. Reading between the (conspiricy theory) lines is also interesting.

If there were demolition charges planted in the World Trade Center they would have to have been planted on the floors where the planes crashed. The video of the towers collapsing shows they collapsed starting at the floors where the planes crashed. How did they know in advance which floors the planes were going to crash into?

If explosives were used they would have found evidence of explosives during the clean up operation. All the people involved with the clean up operation would have had to have been in on the conspiracy.

I think its been forgotten by most. Alot of people don't ever remeber that wtc7 collapsed.

According to Popular Mechanics WTC7 collapsed due to structural damaged caused by the debrie that fell on it and a fire inside the building.

What about operation northwoods and the tonkin incident? I think our government is quite capable and willing to attack its civilians for a cause they see as just.

I have never even heard of operation northwoods so you will have fill me in on it. I'm not even that familar with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. As I understand it the government's version of that is that the North Vietnamese sank one of our ships. What evidence is there that they lied about that?

I don't think it had to do with sliding around the constitution. We werent attack before the first Gluf war and we never declared war on Iraq during it either.

There is nothing in the constitution that says we have to be attacked before declaring war. All the constitution requires is the president get the approval of congress. The government doesn't need an attack to occur to declare war. They sent troops places before when we weren't attacked.

The attack on the World Trade Center was not the first attack on Americans linked to Al Qaeda. Why didn't they go to war with Afghanistan when the USS Cole was bombed or when they blew up US embassies in Africa? If the government was just looking for an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan they had plenty of excuses already.

As far Iraq goes, Iraq was never linked to 9/11. No evidence was ever shown linking the government of Sadam Hussein to the attacks of 9/11. The US went to war with Iraq over weapons of mass destruction.

[bee]

If there were demolition charges planted in the World Trade Center they would have to have been planted on the floors where the planes crashed. The video of the towers collapsing shows they collapsed starting at the floors where the planes crashed. How did they know in advance which floors the planes were going to crash into?

I'm just exploring the idea...not necessarily believing it.....but the people at the controls of the planes could have aimed at certain floors?

I suggested the... terrorists with extra planted explosives....idea because of what fluffybunny said about what fire-fighters had said....and so many con. theorists go on, a lot about 'extra explosions'.

By the way Jim88...have you any thoughts on the plane that crashed over NY two weeks after 9/11?