Jump to content


Photo

Do you believe in the official story of 9/11?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#31 Sal

Sal

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,442 posts

Posted 16 February 2006 - 05:58 PM

What some of you make it sound like is that the government decided to destroy the WTCs and the pentagon. Why in the world would they kill so many of our own people? That doesn't make sense at all.

And if that's not what everyone meant then sorry I guess I'm getting tired already or something.

And I went through school that day. Our school never told us what happened. I came out of school to find my mom terrified and trying to rush me out telling me we were attacked.

#32 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 05 September 2006 - 01:05 PM

^ Sacrifice their own people so that they can go to the Midde East for oil. America is in fact the most violent nation on Earth. America is not yesterday's America. Time has changed. America in the modern times has a government that does not serve its people because the educational and health care system is deteriorating. It spends most of its money on military and wars.

Why did NORAD fail to prevent the planes from hitting the towers when they were having a drill that day?

If one observes the towers collapsing floor by floor, you will see puffs of smoke and pieces of steel moving laterally. Gravity CANNOT explain this because gravity does not move laterally.

The steel was the best evidence for the government to prove their claim. HOWEVER, all the steel from the towers was recycled immediately. Can someone explain why this happened?

Edited by legendsofaranna, 05 September 2006 - 01:09 PM.


#33 becool

becool

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts

Posted 05 September 2006 - 04:53 PM

i have to say that i choose to believe in our government and what theyve been telling us. I mean I'm sure there are things they've hidden from us, but there must be a reason behind it.

I just dont want war happening. Which is. If only women ruled the world. HEHE.

#34 SuYen

SuYen

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts

Posted 05 September 2006 - 06:45 PM

I've seen the one hour special documentory, a home made internet one. Changed my mind a lot about what actually happened, the plane that wasnt even an ordinary plane that crashed, there was a bomb on each floor that detonated, but seriously...

Why should we believe when "lies" exist in the first place?

#35 Cori

Cori

    Teh Hajiman Sexy Fail Kru's Ultimate BoA fan

  • BoAjjang Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,304 posts

Posted 05 September 2006 - 06:53 PM

i have to say that i choose to believe in our government and what theyve been telling us. I mean I'm sure there are things they've hidden from us, but there must be a reason behind it.

I just dont want war happening. Which is. If only women ruled the world. HEHE.

Is there a reason you posted three times? o.O!

There are times I believe it and times I don't (same as how I think about us on landing on the moon...). Its all a matter of information, but our government lies quite a bit, such as the space ship that was found, oh it was a airballoon....-___-;. I will believe some things the more information they give me.

#36 shenjinapple

shenjinapple

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 06 September 2006 - 07:46 AM

Erm...I haven't read everything, but I must admit you guys got me there, regarding it being a conspiracy.
Something's bothering me, though...why hasn't Osama denied it, if he didn't do it, like you guys said? Why are the people taking the blame if it wasn't them, like you guys said?
This is just the question I've been pondering as I read through pages 1 and 2. The third, I'm sorry, I'm sleepy ^^


#37 DreamSilver

DreamSilver

    I can't get BoA off my mind!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 938 posts

Posted 06 September 2006 - 09:40 AM

does anyone has the link about this in youtube? cos the link in the first page is dead

#38 ( ̄ー ̄)

( ̄ー ̄)

    crazy fangirl

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts

Posted 06 September 2006 - 03:50 PM

For those that don't believe, read the Popular Mechanics link posted somewhere in here to find all your answers.

I find it hilarious how the word of educated people weighs less than that of random kids who happen to like discussing impossible theories on forums.

Legendsofaranna: I'll be frank, I cannot answer all of your questions or comments. I'll provide a comment for what I can, however.

If one observes the towers collapsing floor by floor, you will see puffs of smoke and pieces of steel moving laterally. Gravity CANNOT explain this because gravity does not move laterally.

You do realize that there is air in between the floors, right? When the floor above comes falling down at that speed... the only way out for the air is through the weakest area: the windows. With the floor falling down, dust, debris and whatever is shot out from the sides, creating the illusion of an explosion, as some retarded conspiracy believers think.

The steel was the best evidence for the government to prove their claim. HOWEVER, all the steel from the towers was recycled immediately. Can someone explain why this happened?

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

AGAIN. Those conspiracy videos do not have any credibility for their information, nothing more than what I can learn from watching the news or reading articles. It is pure folly to believe a single word. I strongly urge for people to read the popular mechanics link.

edits: reading over this thread... I notice many people base their belief that 9/11 was not as it was shown to be from watching conspiracy videos and reading theories.

lol

Edited by Jeffu, 06 September 2006 - 04:16 PM.


#39 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 08 September 2006 - 01:59 PM

Since you're too lazy to actually look at the pictures:

Posted Image

Frame 147 shows a row of explosives detonating right across the east face at the 79th floor.
Frame 203 shows a row of explosives detonating right across the east face at the 75th floor.

Notice that the smoke shown in the red box is much lighter than the smoke above it.

Notice that it was slented when the top fell to the bottom. Air could have escaped through the weakest area which the through the opening at the top where the dark smoke is.

Quote: "It has been claimed that the explosions of dust that span the east face of the tower, were caused by air being forced from the windows as the floors above collapsed. This explanation is obviously incorrect. If it was correct, such lines of dust would have been expelled from the windows of each floor in succession. That is, we would have seen such lines of dust expelled from floors 79, 78, 77, 76 and 75 in succession, but what we observe is an explosion of dust at floor 79, no new clouds of dust for a few floors, then another (larger) explosion of dust at floor 75."

Second Quote: "The dust due to the visible explosions is a whitish grey. The dust from the demolition of the upper section (which is disintegrating as it falls) is dark grey. One wonders what caused this difference. "

Posted Image

This picture is taken just before it collapsed. How can you explain the smoke above the red line?

Posted Image

Now, how can you explain the motion of the tower as seen in the above?

Third Quote: "The above animated graphic alternates the first and 67th frames. It shows a classic controlled demolition of a 12 story building (the top 12 stories of the North Tower). Strange how the roofline collapses so evenly, I guess, that all the central core columns and all the perimeter wall columns collapsed simultaneously. Some coincidence eh?"

Final Quote:
"Interestingly, this observation disproves the so called pancake theory, where one floor collapses onto the next lower floor, causing that floor to also collapse (not that the pancake theory made any sense anyway). Here, what we see is 5 or 6 floors in a row, all falling onto the 98th floor, which does not collapse (until the second line of explosives are detonated, taking out its support). The pancake theory would have the 98th floor collapsing onto the 97th, causing that to collapse onto the 96th, causing that to collapse onto the 95th, etc."

Edited by legendsofaranna, 08 September 2006 - 02:07 PM.


#40 fallchildren

fallchildren

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 08 September 2006 - 05:20 PM

You didn't read the Popular Mechanics article: this addresses the issues you raised.
Even Van Romeo, whose comment inspired the explosives-inside-the-towers myth, agrees with the scientifically accepted explanation: pancaking floors. Kudos to Locket for finding it.
Also, where are the quotes from? I'd like to see the credibility of the source.

#41 ( ̄ー ̄)

( ̄ー ̄)

    crazy fangirl

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts

Posted 08 September 2006 - 05:47 PM

lol no quote of source means jeffu not giving a damn.

Regardless... the popular mechanics link explains everything. I suggest you open your eyes, and read it before other people take their time to link it for you.

#42 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 08 September 2006 - 07:00 PM

Source is here: http://911research.w...-explosions.htm

I did read the popular mechanics and I agree that the planes have windows, I agree a plane hit the pentagon. The only thing I DON'T agree with is the pancake theory explaining the towers' collapsed. My reference to the evidence simply debunks it.

#43 ( ̄ー ̄)

( ̄ー ̄)

    crazy fangirl

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts

Posted 08 September 2006 - 11:03 PM

You lose all credibility, and any ground to stand on... when you said you disagree with the pancake theory.

Your source sucks too. There are so many assumptions made in there, it's depressing. Too much guesswork has gone into that site for it to even have a shred of credibility.

One thing I'd like to know, what is the level of your education? Scratch that, you've made some stupid statements in this thread as it is, finding this out won't change much.

edits: if you haven't realized this... I will disregard any source you put forward, unless it is one by educated people and by more than just one person. An ugly looking website full of assumptions is simply not a worthy source of information. Logically one would choose the explanation given by Popular Mechanics... what with them being smart people and all yet you choose the obscure site where they even hide their names.

?_?

Edited by Jeffu, 08 September 2006 - 11:08 PM.


#44 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 09 September 2006 - 08:17 AM

^ The pancake theory is also an assumption. You say my source have too many assumptions but you didn't say WHY those assumptions were wrong. Thus, you fail to take a neutral point of view and debate against my point of view. Popular Mechanics did not explain anything about why lines of dust didn't expell from the windows of each floor in succession. You want sources with educated people. You want sources with people's names. FINE.

TIME MAGAZINE: http://www.time.com/...31304-1,00.html

Korey Rowe / Dylan Avery / Jason Bermas video of LOOSE CHANGE:
http://video.google....5...hange&hl=en

William Rodriguez, a 9-11 Survivor, a 9-11 victim heard the explosions (PLEASE READ THIS): http://williamrodrig...c.blogspot.com/

MIT ENGINEER, Jeff King (EDUCATED): http://video.google....8...248&pl=true

Daniel Ellsburg, famous Vietnam 'Pentagon Papers' whistleblower and former American military analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA) ( EDUCATED): http://www.911blogge...ut-for-911.html

Michael Meacher MP former UK Minister (EDUCATED): http://www.informati...rticle11222.htm

Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honourable Paul Hellyer (EDUCATED): http://www.september...ies/Hellyer.mov

Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General Leonid Ivashov http://www.globalres...;articleId=1788

How about Webster Tarpley author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror made in USA? http://www.tarpley.net/welcome.html

Or authors Gore Vidal, Bill Douglas or Christopher Bollyn? http://www.informati...rticle13969.htm http://www.ratical.o...nemyWithin.html http://www.americanf...ollynbeaten.htm

Maybe you don’t trust actors, authors, musicians or poets. You want to hear from a man of God. How about David Ray Griffin theologian, professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology? http://911review.com...iffin/nyc1.html

The respected Presbyterian Press has recently published his book Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11 https://www.ppcbooks.com/index1.asp

Not just into Christianity? What about MUJCA-NET, a group of scholars, religious leaders and activists dedicated to uniting members of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths in pursuit of 9/11 truth. http://mujca.com/

How about philosophers? What about distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, Jim Fetzer. http://www.scholarsf...s23Apr2006.html

What could theologians and philosophers know about national security? You want to hear from insiders to the covert world. How about CIA analyst and former presidential adviser Ray McGovern, an expert on National Security who’s career spanned JFK to GHW Bush. http://www.electricp...y_mcgovern.html

Or Bill Christison, a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. http://www.dissident...hristison14.htm

Or how about David Shayler, the MI5 Whistleblower? http://www.prisonpla...05insidejob.htm http://video.google....286136814574974

Or former cop Michael C. Ruppert? http://www.fromthewi...ooks.shtml#ruby

Or former 9/11 Commission Member and democrat senator, Max Cleland, who blasts Bush and claims "The White House Has Played Cover-Up". http://www.democracy...4/03/23/1546256

Or what about Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton, the two chairmen of the official government 9/11 Commission Report? In their book, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.” Kean and Hamilton reveal that the US military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.

Or Cynthia McKinney, a five-term U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia's fourth district from 1993 to 2003, or Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George Bush Sr. and a former managing director and board member of Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. http://www.911truth....041101130426916

Or Sibel Edmonds, a 32-year-old Turkish-American, who was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks. http://www.justacitizen.com/

Or how about the FBI? Did you know that the reason Osama bin Laden isn't on their most wanted list in connection to 9/11 is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting him to the crimes? http://www.911blogge...e-connects.html


What about another country's government, such as the Venezuelan government under Hugo Chavez, supported by billionaire philanthropist Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez, which is set to launch an international investigation into 9/11? http://www.iraqwar.m...u/article/83785

Maybe they're all too far left for you! You want to hear from a Republican. How about Paul Craig Roberts assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan? http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28070 http://www.electricp...06/02/post.html http://www.wanttokno...ejob911#roberts http://www.informati...rticle14531.htm

YAHOO NEWS tells how the US government did in fact use terrorism against its own people: http://news.yahoo.co...b/prweb434292_2

THE GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER: http://education.gua...1864657,00.html

Iran says U.S., Israel ordered September 11 attacks (MUST READ): http://www.iranfocus...hp?storyid=8512

JEFFU, THESE ARE ALL EDUCATED PEOPLE WITH NAMES. SOME OF THEM ARE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

This is going to be the last thing I'm going to post and it's written by Paul Joseph Watson at Alex Jones' site.

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies

Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.

It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.

The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?

Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.

Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.

This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.

Posted Image

The arguments presented in the article have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.

One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.

A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.

The article was released before analysis conducted by BYU physics Professor Steven Jones discovered traces of thermite in steel samples taken from the World Trade Center.

"Using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate," said Professor Jones.

The article regurgitates pancake and truss theories yet fails to acknowledge the comments of WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (below) who before 9/11 stated that the buildings were designed to take multiple airliner impacts and not collapse.

The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.

The classic crimp implosion of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, is glossed over as the piece again tries to mislead its readers into believing that over engineered steel buildings collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented in world history aside from three examples in one single day.

Commenting on his own interview for the magazine piece, Alex Jones said that initially he thought it was a fake interview or a crank call. Jones has given hundreds of TV and print interviews and thousands of radio interviews but his experience with Benjamin Chertoff was like no other.

"People from school newspapers sound more credible and serious," said Jones.

Jones had to call Popular Mechanics' office and verify that Chertoff actually worked for them. In the course of doing so he was erroneously told by Editor in Chief James Meigs that the story was not going to be a hit piece and that it was simply intended to explore the different theories surrounding 9/11.

In addition, Popular Mechanics highlighted an article that Jones had posted on his website about incendiary devices in the World Trade Center.

Jones' websites feature a cross-section of mainstream and alternative media articles. An article written by Jones himself is clearly labeled as such.

The magazine had contacted the individuals featured in the article who told them that they had never spoken to Jones. The article was clearly attributed to its orginal author - Randy Lavello - and not Alex Jones. When Jones asked Popular Mechanics if they were going to contact the individuals again and ask if they had spoken with the original author, they dropped the subject.

As part of a PR campaign to sell its newly packaged dross, the book 'Debunking 9/11 Lies,' Popular Mechanics' James Meigs appeared on the O'Reilly Factor (watch below).

Meigs and O'Reilly need to be reminded that constantly parroting the word "fact," without presenting any actual evidence, does not make something a fact.

Meigs contradicts himself completely in claiming that, "No one had ever seen a one hundred plus story building collapse to the ground before," and yet less than two minutes later agrees with O'Reilly's comment that nothing unexpected about the impact of the planes or the collapses surprised analysts.

Meigs concurs that it's an unprecedented event and yet claims that analysts knew exactly what was going to happen. How could they have known the ins and outs of an event that had never happened before?

Meigs calls the WTC implosion, "The most closely studied collapse in world history," yet fails to address the fact that 50,000 tons of steel from the WTC, a supposed crime scene, was shipped to Asia and a further 10,000 tons to India, preventing a detailed analysis.

Meigs, citing opinions of engineers, bizarrely states that, "The real surprise is that the building stood up as long as it did."

In February 2005, The Windsor building in Madrid (pictured) burned for over 24 hours as shooting flames engulfed almost the entire structure and yet the building did not collapse. The core of the WTC was exponentially more robust than the Windsor building. So we have one building that burned incessantly for over 24 hours and did not fall, compared to two buildings which were structurally far superior, burned briefly from limited fires, and yet both collapsed within an average time of 79 minutes - and Meigs claims they should have collapsed sooner!

Posted Image

Meigs claims that Popular Mechanics' investigation is "not political," and yet the foreword to their book is written by none other than GOP darling Senator John McCain.

In the foreword McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did.

"We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks McCain.

Afghanistan is now a failed narco-state run by tribal warlords and ex-Taliban kingpins, nowhere outside of Kabul is secure, malnutrition amongst children is the highest in the world outside Africa, and opium production is at record levels. Bellicose statements about chasing Al-Qaeda around the globe are somewhat contradicted by the fact that Al-Qaeda-Iraq links were proven to be fraudulent and outgoing CIA director AB “Buzzy” Krongard told the London Times that Bin Laden should stay free. Couple this with President Bush's view on Bin Laden - "I truly am not that concerned about him," and McCain's rhetoric falls flat on its face.

McCain also uses the callous tactic of saying that questioning the government's version of 9/11 insults the victims and this is also parroted in the Popular Mechanics magazine piece.

Let's hear what Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members has to say on this subject.

"If you want to believe what they want to snow you under on like the 9/11 Commission - that's a total fallacy," said Doyle.

"It looks like there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 if you really look at all the facts - a lot of families now feel the same way."

Doyle said that half of the family members - relatives of the 9/11 victims - he represents thought that the US government was complicit in 9/11.

Despite the efforts of Popular Mechanics to whitewash government complicity in 9/11 via a front page feature story and a new book, recent polls clearly show an increasing trend towards a rejection of the official version of events.

If we are to set aside the 30% of Americans that do not even know the year in which September 11 happened, then we are left with figures of around 36% who agree that the government was involved in the attack and only 34% of Americans who actually know in which year the attack took place that still think it was carried out solely by a rag-tag group of 19 incompetent morons who couldn't fly Cessna's at the behest of a man on a kidney dialysis machine.

Popular Mechanics are sure to make a tidy sum of money from their latest publication, but their credibility is certain to dwindle in light of the fact that they are willingly acting as collaborators by aiding the cover-up of a crime that resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and untold more to come as a result of how the attack changed US foreign policy.

Meigs claims that Popular Mechanics' investigation is "not political," and yet the foreword to their book is written by none other than GOP darling Senator John McCain.

In the foreword McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did.

"We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks McCain.

Afghanistan is now a failed narco-state run by tribal warlords and ex-Taliban kingpins, nowhere outside of Kabul is secure, malnutrition amongst children is the highest in the world outside Africa, and opium production is at record levels. Bellicose statements about chasing Al-Qaeda around the globe are somewhat contradicted by the fact that Al-Qaeda-Iraq links were proven to be fraudulent and outgoing CIA director AB “Buzzy” Krongard told the London Times that Bin Laden should stay free. Couple this with President Bush's view on Bin Laden - "I truly am not that concerned about him," and McCain's rhetoric falls flat on its face.

McCain also uses the callous tactic of saying that questioning the government's version of 9/11 insults the victims and this is also parroted in the Popular Mechanics magazine piece.

Let's hear what Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members has to say on this subject.

"If you want to believe what they want to snow you under on like the 9/11 Commission - that's a total fallacy," said Doyle.

"It looks like there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 if you really look at all the facts - a lot of families now feel the same way."

Doyle said that half of the family members - relatives of the 9/11 victims - he represents thought that the US government was complicit in 9/11.

Despite the efforts of Popular Mechanics to whitewash government complicity in 9/11 via a front page feature story and a new book, recent polls clearly show an increasing trend towards a rejection of the official version of events.

If we are to set aside the 30% of Americans that do not even know the year in which September 11 happened, then we are left with figures of around 36% who agree that the government was involved in the attack and only 34% of Americans who actually know in which year the attack took place that still think it was carried out solely by a rag-tag group of 19 incompetent morons who couldn't fly Cessna's at the behest of a man on a kidney dialysis machine.

Popular Mechanics are sure to make a tidy sum of money from their latest publication, but their credibility is certain to dwindle in light of the fact that they are willingly acting as collaborators by aiding the cover-up of a crime that resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and untold more to come as a result of how the attack changed US foreign policy.


http://www.prisonpla...armechanics.htm

Edited by legendsofaranna, 09 September 2006 - 02:23 PM.


#45 fallchildren

fallchildren

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 10 September 2006 - 11:31 AM

Out of the collection of blogs and personal opinions that was compiled, the Time article that you supplied seems to say it best.

But there's a big problem with Loose Change and with most other conspiracy theories. The more you think about them, the more you realize how much they depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses. ... Granted, the Pentagon crash site looks odd in photographs. But if the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, then what happened to American Airlines Flight 77? Where did all the real, documented people on it go? Assassinated? Relocated? What about eyewitnesses who saw a plane, not a missile? And what are the chances that an operation of such size--it would surely have involved hundreds of military and civilian personnel--could be carried out without a single leak? Without leaving behind a single piece of evidence hard enough to stand up to scrutiny in a court? People, the feds just aren't that slick. Nobody is.


You agree that a plane, not a Tomahawk cruise missile, hit the Pentagon. Fine, we're settled that argument. But the point is, these conspiracy theories raise many more unanswerable questions than the generally accepted reality. We'll use the point you seem to cling tenaciously to: the controlled demo job of the WTC.
1) Why fly the airplanes into the towers in the first place? Obviously, if we go with this theory, the explosives were wired into the buildings prior to the impact of the passenger aircraft. To inflict maximum casualties (in order to further enrage the American public), just demolish both towers one after the other. This way the workers have no chance of escape. It would be easy enough to blame the incidents on terrorists, the WTC was bombed by Islamic extremists in '93.
2) How did the government (or any third party, for that matter) manage to smuggle the explosives into the WTC and get access to the support structure without notice? It would take days and manpower to wire up a skyscraper for demolition.
3) How did the airplane's explosion not set off the munitions? Be it plastic charges, nitroglycerine or plain old TNT, an airplane-caliber explosion would have triggered the explosives in the building.

And, well you get my point. Every situation has its share of unanswerable questions. But just because we can't account for every little nitpicky fact, does not mean the accepted version of events is false. Catastrophic events like inevitably breed conpsiracy theories; look at Pearl Harbor and the JFK assassination. But you don't see "Roosevelt allows bombing of Pearl Harbor" or "Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK" in history books.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users