9/11. Not interested in a debate here, but can we just have a quick show of hands?

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

I'm just interested in how many people around here are also highly skeptical of what we have been told about 9/11.

I'm really not after a debate (it would be long, involved, probably pointless and personally I have done this elsewhere), but I just wanted to see who is around.

It has very strong ongoing relevance for current world events.

Many thanks.

The reason people won't discuss in detail here is because of the enormously involved nature. It would be a full time job. Not to mention that they'd be pointlessly arguing with people whose minds are already made up one way or another, many of whom tediously call names and don't really listen.

"Supposedly because of planes"... How old are you Corbyn? Did you see the planes hit the towers? I watched it live on TV having been sent home from work due to fears about other targets. When the towers fell I had no doubt it was because of the planes hitting them. No other building has collapsed like that before or since because no other building has had a passenger plane full of aviation fuel smash into it so hard that it is completely consumed by the building.

The rubble wasn't immediately carted off, it took a huge amount of time to clear the site, many months in fact.

But anyway, what you and the other conspiracy enthusiasts want is for other people to just swallow your assertions without any actual facts or logical thoroughness.

No other building has collapsed like that before or since because no other building has had a passenger plane full of aviation fuel smash into it so hard that it is completely consumed by the building.

Except WTC7, right?

The two towers collapsed due to being each hit by passenger planes full of aviation fuel. The WTC7 building collapsed due to a different mechanism, as well explained in the official report. No other skyscraper buildings apart from the two WTC towers have been hit like that by planes, before or since.

(The pentagon was also hit by a plane, but as it's not a tower block it wasn't damaged in the same way, just thought I'd mention it in case you want to try another "gotcha").

Yes I've read the official reports too.

culture, out of interest why do you feel the need to be unpleasant about this? Genuine question? Why can't this be something that can be talked about without unpleasantness?

Any chance of any specific points to indicate the issues you have with what happened on 9/11? Or, if it's far too long and detailed to explain here, any chance you could indicate which specific book, report or website you have read that gave you enough specifics to know that the facts as widely told about 9/11 aren't true?

You think I'm being unpleasant? Wow, where exactly have I been unpleasant?

I really don't buy it about wtc7 collapsing in that way because of office combustibles. In a way that no other building ever has. And when it took public pressure to even have it investigated (very badly).

But no matter.
Even if I did accept the official story of wtc7, other elements of the story would still unbelievable to me. And as with most people on here I can't sit around talking about it. But I would urge anyone with any doubts to look into it all themselves.

Yes I can make some recommendations, culture. Back later with those.

Come on, answer my questions.

(You have appeared to confuse not agreeing with you and asking questions, with being "unpleasant")

What, "are you 12?". I don't mind, just find it interesting.

To be fair, you have refrained from "tin foil hat idiot" nonsense. But thought I'd ask you because you do also talk reasonably!

Where did I say that? I really don't know what you're on about.

Sorry Culture you are absolutely right that you never said that. I was doing too many things at once and was looking at a different window.

Can I ask you, Culture whether you have ever had any doubts at all about the official story?

Wow Corbyn, you've written post after post on here, and yet you still won't put your own far more plausible theory of events and all your supporting evidence up for scrutiny.

Surely, you could just tell us what "actually happened".

I don't know who did it, Helmet. But I'm fairly confident it wasn't Bin Laden or 19 of his muslim mates with boxcutters.
I think WTC 7 was brought down deliberately, and not by the planes which went nowhere near it. I think something very odd went on with the usual stringent airspace defences.
I think we were told loudly and forcefully by the media that it was Bin Laden and his crew before anyone could have possibly known that. I think the investigation was delayed and fudged.
I think financial activity in the days leading up to 9/11 was highly atypical, which suggests there was knowledge it was coming. I think so much information remains classified that no one has much of a hope of knowing who really did it. Which is very convenient for many people.

Not sure if this has been mentioned in 22 pages, but surely the Wikileaks thing dampened down views on the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing because despite all the revelations there not a sausage of any mention of any cover-up or plot by the US was there?

Or are we meant to think that Snowden is in fact in on it and all the revelations were set up to make us think that?

Snowden had a very specific set of objectives around surveillance.

Very good question, ProfessorDent

Some of the most advanced conspiracy researchers on the planet class Wikileaks as what is known as a "limited hangout".

Corbyn, I am skeptical by nature and hold off from forming a judgement on most things until I have enough evidence on which to make a decision.

Do you think that the planes were flown into the towers by the authorized flight staff? Or by other agents? Or by unknown terrorists not linked to Bin Laden?

CultureSucksDownWords, have you actually seen any videos of the world's top conspiracy researchers discussing 911 and what they think happened? Have you not heard that they say that the planes were remote controlled?

CultureSucksDownWords, you seem to have read the official report repeatedly, but are aware of little else as discussed by the world's leading conspiracy researchers.

Yes, I am similar in that way, Culture. What constitutes "evidence" is very tricky when it comes to 9/11, however. Most of the earliest and most credibly-presented information comes from the mainstream media which, in my view, is subject to a complex set of constraints.
We just don't have free access to the raw facts, beyond what we see with our own eyes.

I don't know who flew the planes into the buildings. I don't know why usual security catastrophically failed to prevent them. In any case, I don't think they caused WTC7 to come down.