investigate 9/11

[BeetrootsResolution]

My uncle sent me this and thought it was an appropriate time to share it with you

The Truth?

well christie1 holocaust deniers are just plain nuts!

My point exactly. YOu can read into that my feeling about these bizarre conspiracy theories. I find it all sad really.

It may seem disrespectful to question it...but god...you can't just let it get swept under the carpet incase it seems disrespectful...It was an awful, awful, event from start to finish...whoever caused it and for whatever reasons...it would be very injust to just accept what you are told by officials..just because they are officials...they are just as corrupt as the next person..they just happen to be in power!

there are so many bizarre conspiracy theories about though i find it interesting rather than sad

but Christie much as i don't believe the conspiracy i don't think you can compare it to holocaust deniers. No one is saying people didn't die or suffer. they are speculating they died at the hands of someone else. Bit different IMO.

Maybe one of the reasons so many people are sceptical is the failure of the US govt to release evidence like the voice tapes from the black boxes and more pictures than just those 5 frames from the Pentagon.

We don't actually know if the hijackers had guns - we're told that they had craft knife blades (shouldn't those have been picked up by airport security?) All 4 plane crews included at least one pilot with combat experience so how come the hijackers were able to take over the planes so easily - the black boxes might reveal more but they have not been produced.

If the official story is completely true why is so much information withheld?

Ruty, your right in one sense, we knew who was responsible in the holocaust. but for me it is the same because I think it is crystal clear who was responsible in 9/11 so the analogy works. I should not have touched this thread really. It really upsets me the willingness for people to "believe" the "evidence" of the theories. Perhaps if the discussion was more balanced, instead of the herd mentality. With the exceptions of a few on this thread, there has been little discussion of the evidence that bin laden was responsible (even though he has said he was, oh, I forgot, he was an actor in disquise). It is too "wag the dog" for me. I find this bandwagon kind of thinking scary. The look on bush's face when he is told the news says it all. But, hey, maybe he isn't really the president, mabye he is bin laden in disguise of george Bush....hmmmmm shall I start a website?

christie i don't think anyone on this thread really seriously belives that 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy i don't, but there is a small part of it that people want 'to wrap up' iykwim,

Afghanistan pipeline was a strong motivator apparently.

that film is interesting (the pentagon one) very similar stuff to the opening docu. But a hell of a lot shorter.

I know someone mentioned that the plane would have exploded on impact of the pentagon.

But the ground was unmarked

The hole was small

It does notmake sense...

you have to be a bloody experienced large plane pilot to crash into into those targets with such precision -?

sorry you find it upsetting christie.

It really just doesn't all add up...

WTC7...was just left to burn...no one in it, no fire fighters in it, just left..the decision was taken to just let it burn. Why not try and save the building?

I know it is such a very sensitive issue to try and justify a so called conspiracy, but could you imagine...if in several years time it came to light that the government had mis informed the world...there was more to it..the government really did let it happen...or worse still did it all themselves. It would be devistating and people would be asking why the hell it was not investigated.
It damned well would be covered up by the government..all traces of CCTV tapes, all traces of explosives..I mean look at how quickly it was all cleared up!!

It would be unatural not to question such clearly questionable events.

christie - I think the reason we are discussing the conspiracy theory rather than 'bin aden did it' is because the conspiracy is new - to me anyway- and therefore interesting to chew the fat about-

Oh yes, very hard targets to hit, they were so very very small and tricky.

sarcasm is thelowest form of wit - or so my mohter tells me!!

To hit the pentagon without touching the ground you would have to be a pretty experienced pilot

Oh, and re the whole "the government knew it would happen" ... well, the stuff I've read says that the US did have some warnings. But I'm sure they get warnings all the time about potential terrorist threats, almost all of which aren't real threats.

Maybe if they'd been more competant, they would have realised this was a real threat. But, as we've all seen, they're a bit crap. Shocker.

Beet might mean the Pentagon there NQC....it really would of taken a skilled pilot to hit it the way it was hit...the turning circle was so very tight...the said pilot was not a trained pilot at all..

But they did take flying lessons. Lots of them. And they focussed on steering, not on landing (much to the suspicion of their teachers). Oh, wait, since they didn't exist, was all that evidence faked, too?

I'm just exasperated by this conspiracy rubbish. Look, fine, be skeptical. But then, if you're too skeptical to believe the official line, despite the evidence, why believe a random web movie that's been debunked in loads of places.

Hmm, DH has a book that claims that all the conspiracy theories are there to distract us from the real conspiracies. So: the whole moon thing? The moon, and space don't really exist at all. The Kennedy thing? He's alive and well, and living with Marilyn. And this one? Presumably the Twin Towers never existed in the first place?

No one is saying you HAVE to believe these theories...and there isn't just one.... but anyone with eyes and a brain can see things don't add up. These may have genuine scientific reasons for not adding up...but as far as I can see even some of these scientific theories don't add up.
Its just a debate...people have different views, different feelings, different knowledge...just because someone isn't employed by the US government doesn't mean their view isn't a valid one...or indeed a factual, well informed one

Hmmm, had a dig, and it looks like they did do a tight turn, but 4 miles before hitting the pentagon, which isn't exactly a tight turning circle, even for a plane.

The pentagon is one of the biggest buildings in the world, having a volume of 2 million cubic metres. Yes, they hit it reasonably close to the ground, but so of it?

I'm not great on physics. But every time MB has made points (clearly, and with great patience) about the science of the towers' collapse, nobody has bothered to respond.

ludaloo - exactly

NQC, how come the plane did not touch the ground before it hit?

Because he steered it into the Pentagon, without going low enough to hit the ground.

Planes don't automatically land, if you get them low enough. You have to stall them, to make them touch down, generally. Landing a plane is harder than not landing it, iyswim. (Sometimes pilots have to try landing more than once, because they don't manage to slow down enough on the first pass.)

but the hole was at ground level.

I have read some of MB's stuff - need longer to sift through it - so will do as I fidnthe whole thing interesting