Conspiracy theories

9/11 conspiracy theories

This controlled demolition hypothesis is rejected by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the American Society of Civil Engineers, who, after their research, both concluded that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Towers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

On 9/11, there were 4 highjacked airplanes with 246 people who were all killed and would have justified anything Bush or the "Military Industrial Complex" wanted to do without planting a nuke under the World Trade Center. Blowing it up would not accomplish anything that was not already accomplished with the planes. Try using a little common sense.

Reptilian shape-shifting aliens

David Icke argues that reptilian, shape-shifting extraterrestrial humanoids are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to Icke, a reptilian global elite is behind all things that occur in the world. Icke's theories are rejected by 911blogger.com and other conspiracy theory sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Here is another conspiracy theory that is as sensible as the rest.

^Its easy to ridicule and instantly dismiss anything, isnt it UG? Especially when it doent fit in with you're everythings rosey and dandy mr USA, Stars and stripes and the whole shabang.

As I said previously, I don't know what happened and the truth of it may never be known, but I at least recognise that not everything is how it seems or was explained by the official version.

Anyway, as you have pointed out there are some seriously loopy people out there and I don't think anyone who has posted so far on this matter is in that cateogry, yet.

Anyway, as you have pointed out there are some seriously loopy people out there and I don't think anyone who has posted so far on this matter is in that cateogry, yet.

It is also easy to make up silly stories and pat yourself on the back for being so "open minded". Sorry, but I very much disagree.

Funny you bring up the Pentacon attack.

Please a reasonable explanation how an airplane can fly through a bunch of reinforced concrete walls undamaged and then just disappear?

Remember when looking at this exit hole the planes body went through this wall, if so, where is it?

There were dozens of cameras on, at or nearby the Pentacon at least one could clearly show a plane?

Just ask yourself why the area of the TC is mentioned as Ground zero when ground Zero is clearly defined as a place of some nuclear test stuff.

Many words and phrases take on new uses in colloquial speech. Even before 9/11 to me "ground zero" had always meant the center of where something big happened. It doesn't have to be a nuclear explosion or natural disaster.

Ran across this in a story about the history of "420"...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/4...r_n_543854.html

"As fortune would have it, the collapse of San Francisco's hippie utopia in the late '60s set the stage. As speed freaks, thugs and con artists took over The Haight, the Grateful Dead picked up and moved to the Marin County hills - just blocks from San Rafael High School.

"Marin Country was kind of ground zero for the counter culture," says Steve."

Its easy to ridicule and instantly dismiss anything, isnt it UG?

One time I asked you if you thought that the US had really landed a man on the moon and you seemed rather insulted that I would question your intelligence. I do not believe that the moon landing was faked, but it would be a lot more logical than the US Government blowing up the World Trade Building.

Kohee if you have a pre 9/11 dictionary you will find the term ground zero is used to describe nukulaa stuff/explosions.

Meanings of words/expressions change over the years like being gay once was a word meaning you were a happy person or something.

Ground zero is now used for many other things like as in your example the start of the counter culture, I am almost sure that people from that time in that time would not have used the term ground zero.

The report I linked to earlier does a good job investigating the elements present in the dust and in fact it is astonishing what they find and the verifiable links they make to claim some kind of nukulaa thing has been involved/destroyed.

Thousands of US citizens that helped in the clean up are now having health problems , some related to radiation.

The reported molten pools of steel/iron are not explained anywhere in the N.I.S.T report, steel or iron does not melt at temp that fuel burns.

The pictures I posted show molten rocks and a big fekkin hole being filled up with concrete. Just like the Russian said would be

The N.I.S.T report is a theory on how these buildings came down and that are there own words.

Their theory is being questioned just like any other theory.

Why do you have a problem with questioning a theory?

And Chuck here's one for you.

I guess this guy and 700 of his collegues are all just kook's too?

What is funny is there are many more actually. Including those that actually built the towers.

But funniest of all is folks will say this & that & yet never note that this clip again shows WTC7

A building 47 stories tall & NOT hit by any planes.

Yet falls at free fall speed as if there is absolutely no resistance given from anything below.

No steel bending...no floors collapsing onto each other or hanging up one side slightly... just free fall.... PERFECTLY....As if everything below

broke/bent/vaporized ...what ever you want to call it. To make the building fall PERFECTLY into itself.

Not one steel girder nor one steel column held up even slightly longer to send the building off its perfect straight into itself fall.

Pretty amazing & a historical first for sure.

You do not need to be a conspiracy theorist. You just have to have an open mind & a little

wonderment about general physics.

It is also funny that none of these folks reporting claim the US is responsible yet all the folks who do not want to look beyond what was hired to be said on ONE side are the first to say anything about the US not being involved...

None has said they were.

I can understand why many people want to believe the official version and consider any other theories as kooky, loony, nutty etc. For one thing, they might think it is unpatriotic to not accept the official version.

The evidence for the destruction of Building 7 being other than the official version is so compelling that it would be kooky, loony and nutty to disregard it.

"There are none so blind as he who will not see"

I will contact the Russian guy about them thar holes....

But funniest of all is folks will say this & that & yet never note that this clip again shows WTC7

A building 47 stories tall & NOT hit by any planes.

Yet falls at free fall speed as if there is absolutely no resistance given from anything below.

No steel bending...no floors collapsing onto each other or hanging up one side slightly... just free fall.... PERFECTLY....As if everything below

broke/bent/vaporized ...what ever you want to call it. To make the building fall PERFECTLY into itself.

Not one steel girder nor one steel column held up even slightly longer to send the building off its perfect straight into itself fall.

Pretty amazing & a historical first for sure.

You do not need to be a conspiracy theorist. You just have to have an open mind & a little

wonderment about general physics.

...........

If one is to swallow the official version of the cause, then one would have to believe that the fire that caused the collapse was evenly distributed and caused perfectly even damage at the same rate and at the same time to every supporting column. No individual hotspots, just simultaneous, perfectly timed consistant damage of all the supports.

A random possibility that is so remote that it verges on the impossible.

Fiction writing is great, you can make up almost anything."

- Ivana Trump, on finishing her first novel

Funny you bring up the Pentacon attack.

Please a reasonable explanation how an airplane can fly through a bunch of reinforced concrete walls undamaged and then just disappear?

Remember when looking at this exit hole the planes body went through this wall, if so, where is it?

There were dozens of cameras on, at or nearby the Pentacon at least one could clearly show a plane?

Alex:

Please read these links.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Maybe they will help clear up your confusion about the Pentagon. The photo you show and claim the body of the aircraft went through is not accurate. The nose cone of the aircraft, not the entire aircraft, is said to have penetrated the inner C-Ring, which is hardly a small feat. You should remember an aircraft is largely aluminum. Aluminum does not hold up well during a crash yet some parts penetrated deep into the Pentagon.

Unless the surveillance cameras were high speed professional Nikons, it is unlikely any of them could capture a clear image of an aircraft crashing at speed into the Pentagon.

Remember when looking at this exit hole the planes body went through this wall, if so, where is it?

There were dozens of cameras on, at or nearby the Pentacon at least one could clearly show a plane?

Thats right, all those cameras bar one, the footage has not been released. Perhaps they show a missile hitting the building ?

Its easy to ridicule and instantly dismiss anything, isnt it UG?

One time I asked you if you thought that the US had really landed a man on the moon and you seemed rather insulted that I would question your intelligence.

Nonesense G, I wasntinsulted that you were questioning my intelligence or lack there of

I do not believe that the moon landing was faked

and neither do i.

I can understand why many people want to believe the official version and consider any other theories as kooky, loony, nutty etc. For one thing, they might think it is unpatriotic to not accept the official version.

The evidence for the destruction of Building 7 being other than the official version is so compelling that it would be kooky, loony and nutty to disregard it.

"There are none so blind as he who will not see"

EXACTLY.

Those of you that oppose any thought or notion that perhaps something else happened (other than the official version) perhaps could explain to us here how building 7 just suddenly fell down at almost free fall speed?

Arent you just a bit suspicious?

[quote name='chuckd' date='2010-04-21 09:24:04' You should remember an aircraft is largely aluminum. Aluminum does not hold up well during a crash yet some parts penetrated deep into the Pentagon.

Actually, the very nose cone of alot of aircrafts these days is a carbon fibre type material, certainly not capable of punching holes through solid concrete.

I like the idea of a plane of this size folding into such a small hole. <deleted>?

Surprise! Surprise!

For what it's worth, I am trying to recall hearing on 9/11 that WTC-7 had to be demolished due to it's unsafe condition. It's just in the back of my mind as a distant memory from that night.

I have no problem believing WTC-7 was brought down in a controlled demolition but NOT the other two.

Actually, the very nose cone of alot of aircrafts these days is a carbon fibre type material, certainly not capable of punching holes through solid concrete.

I like the idea of a plane of this size folding into such a small hole. <deleted>?

They are capable of exiting a hole when they are preceeded by landing gears and other forms of steel, however.

EXACTLY.

Those of you that oppose any thought or notion that perhaps something else happened (other than the official version) perhaps could explain to us here how building 7 just suddenly fell down at almost free fall speed?

Arent you just a bit suspicious?

Maybe you could explain why anyone - other than the terrorists - would bother to blow up the WTC when 4 planes full of passengers had already been destroyed and would accomplish any goals they might have had. It just does not make any sense at all.

For what it's worth, I am trying to recall hearing on 9/11 that WTC-7 had to be demolished due to it's unsafe condition. It's just in the back of my mind as a distant memory from that night.

I have no problem believing WTC-7 was brought down in a controlled demolition but NOT the other two.

A couple of thoughts on this premise....

I am in the building industry all my adult life as a licensed general contractor & have brought down some large structures.

Nothing as large as this mind you. But my interest in it extends back many years before 9-11

As such I can tell you that to do a controlled demolition of WTC7 ...There is absolutely no way someone

anyone...not even an army of engineers could have gone into that building that day after the crash & done the work needed to

prep the collapse. That type of work takes many days/ weeks.

Now with that in mind & your previous statement that you can believes watching it that it was a controlled demolition....

Then it goes without saying the work was done prior to the planes hitting the other 2 towers.

That would raise a few questions no? Or would we chalk that up to coincidence.

Lastly if you watch WTC7 & surmise it is in fact a controlled collapse.....

I do not see how you can look at the perfect collapse of the other two towers which both fell perfectly centered into themselves in the same fashion & not have a slight wonderment of it all.

I know I have kept the other two towers out of this equation/ hypothesis for now because it is easier to grasp no planes hit WTC7

But looking at the two towers fall ...again perfectly at the speed they did with no off center sway due to any remaining structural back stopping anywhere below any of the floors.......Well all I can say is.....maybe once in a million years? But twice in the same day?

No make that three times in the same day

Yes I can appreciate the engineers & architects having a few questions about it all. WITHOUT even getting into the who or why

For what it's worth, I am trying to recall hearing on 9/11 that WTC-7 had to be demolished due to it's unsafe condition. It's just in the back of my mind as a distant memory from that night.

I have no problem believing WTC-7 was brought down in a controlled demolition but NOT the other two.

A couple of thoughts on this premise....

I am in the building industry all my adult life as a licensed general contractor & have brought down some large structures.

Nothing as large as this mind you. But my interest in it extends back many years before 9-11

As such I can tell you that to do a control demolition of WTC7 ...There is absolutely no way someone

anyone...not even an army of engineers could have gone into that building that day after the crash & done the work needed to

prep the collapse. That type of work takes many days/ weeks.

Now with that in mind & your previous statement that you can believes watching it that it was a controlled demolition....

Then it goes without saying the work was done prior to the planes hitting the other 2 towers.

That would raise a few questions no? Or would we chalk that up to coincidence.

Lastly if you watch WTC7 & surmise it is in fact a controlled collapse.....

I do not see how you can look at the perfect collapse of the other two towers which both fell perfectly centered into themselves in the same fashion & not have a slight wonderment of it all.

I know I have kept the other two towers out of this equation/ hypothesis for now because it is easier to grasp no planes hit WTC7

But looking at the two towers fall ...again perfectly at the speed they did with no off center sway due to any remaining structural back stopping anywhere below any of the floors.......Well all I can say is.....maybe once in a million years? But twice in the same day?

No make that three times in the same day

Yes I can appreciate the engineers & architects having a few questions about it all. WITHOUT even getting into the who or why

Mr. Flying:

I said I might be able to go along with a controlled demolition of WTC-7. Don't push your luck by asking for any more.

Here is the version I choose to believe on the Twin Towers:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/...eagar-0112.html

Cheers.

That report is no fun. It actually makes sense!

Kohee if you have a pre 9/11 dictionary you will find the term ground zero is used to describe nukulaa stuff/explosions.

Meanings of words/expressions change over the years like being gay once was a word meaning you were a happy person or something.

Ground zero is now used for many other things like as in your example the start of the counter culture, I am almost sure that people from that time in that time would not have used the term ground zero.

I'm the one who told you all that in the first place.

Mr. Flying:

I said I might be able to go along with a controlled demolition of WTC-7. Don't push your luck by asking for any more.

Here is the version I choose to believe on the Twin Towers:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/...eagar-0112.html

Cheers.

No problem...Opinions are like A-holes eh?

I never said anyone was not entitled to theirs.

Yes I saw that report when it first came out.

For me the collapse does not compute. As I said my opinion is mine alone & based on well over

30 years in the construction industry. There is no way for three buildings to fall perfectly into themselves based on

planes hitting two of them & nothing hitting the third.

That for me is fact based again on what I know not what someone writes or thinks. The fact that many engineers, architects & scientists agree is just an aside

Now as for the pentagon or even the other in the forest I have suspicions & hunches but again just my own but not based on facts/experience/physics

Well actually my thoughts on the pentagon are based a bit on experience. My nick name "flying" comes from the fact that I use to fly. So I have some of my experience in regards to ground effects, wing loading, lift/drag ratios etc coloring my thoughts on the entry to the pentagon & the experience of who was flying etc.....

Apparently, the approach to the Pentagon was a very clever piece of flying, yet the alleged hijacker, Hani Hanjour was so incompetant that that the flight school he attended wouldn't even let him hire a single engine aircraft!

One thing I have wondered about the Pentagon attack....where are the wings, or where are the marks of the wings....the hole is just a round hole and if the wings broke off....where are they? Wouldn't they be sitting on the grass outside? Keeping in mind that a plane is not two wings stuck to a fuselage....it is a fuselage sitting on a wing.

Apparently, the approach to the Pentagon was a very clever piece of flying, yet the alleged hijacker, Hani Hanjour was so incompetant that that the flight school he attended wouldn't even let him hire a single engine aircraft!

One thing I have wondered about the Pentagon attack....where are the wings, or where are the marks of the wings....the hole is just a round hole and if the wings broke off....where are they? Wouldn't they be sitting on the grass outside? Keeping in mind that a plane is not two wings stuck to a fuselage....it is a fuselage sitting on a wing.

What hole are you referring to?

No, the wings wouldn't "be sitting on the grass outside". A commercial jetliner isn't a snap-together toy. It has rivets and screws and all sorts of neat stuff to hold it together.

Here are a number of pictures for you to peruse. Scan down for photos showing where the aircraft entered the Pentagon.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http:/...%26tbs%3Disch:1

EXACTLY.

Those of you that oppose any thought or notion that perhaps something else happened (other than the official version) perhaps could explain to us here how building 7 just suddenly fell down at almost free fall speed?

Arent you just a bit suspicious?

Maybe you could explain why anyone - other than the terrorists - would bother to blow up the WTC when 4 planes full of passengers had already been destroyed and would accomplish any goals they might have had. It just does not make any sense at all.

It just does not make any sense at all. AGREED!

But just because something doesnt make sense to a couple of gentleman like ourselves doesnt mean there isnt a motive somewhere. Perhaps, just perhaps, the planners of this attack wernt happy with a couple of planloads of dead people, they wanted to ensure that this was a mamoth attack of unprecedented proportions - which would enable them to 'DECLARE WAR ON TERROR' and invent stories like "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" .

I dunno UG, i dunno