September the 11th/Pentagon Attack a Conspiracy?

The Haysta · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 2:20 am

It had never crossed my mind until recently that it could have been a conspiracy plot.

Quote from; http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 04,00.html

Quote:

People who believe the second explanation live in a very different world from those who believe the first. In world No. 2, al-Qaeda is not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. The U.S. government is. The Pentagon was not hit by a commercial jet; it was hit by a cruise missile. United Flight 93 did not crash after its occupants rushed the cockpit; it was deliberately taken down by a U.S. Air Force fighter. The entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration.

The population of world No. 2 is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.

Anyhoo, discuss.

Adbot · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 2:20 am

Mike · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 2:44 am

I suggest anyone interested in this should watch "Loose Change" if you havn't already. It's quite long, but makes some very interesting points which are believable.

I'm not sure if I believe it, but I guess it's possible.

Brad · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 9:25 am

Mike wrote:

I suggest anyone interested in this should watch "Loose Change" if you havn't already. It's quite long, but makes some very interesting points which are believable.

I'm not sure if I believe it, but I guess it's possible.

The BBC aired a program a few months ago rebuking a lot of the claims made in 'loose change' although it does make some convincing points they were equally convincingly disproven by the BBC. But I've sort of gotten to the stage where I don't know who to believe when it comes to stuff like this.

trekkie · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 9:50 am

yeah well even if they were suppose to be missiles, we are still missing a lot of people. unless you watched south park where the president makes a speech about what they did to them

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 11:11 am

Rubbish to be honest, just some guys with to much time on there hands.

Mr Pink · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 11:29 am

This all reminds of that Southpark episode, I am not much into politics but I could say that government (even like United States one) would never kill their own people.

Adbot · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 11:29 am

trekkie · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 11:59 am

but i wouldn't put it pass bush's friends

The Haysta · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 2:15 pm

CreepyPirate wrote:

Rubbish to be honest, just some guys with too much time on there hands.

The guys who made Loose Change make some very interesting points, never before in history has a steel framed building collapsed due to a fire. As well as the fact that the records from security cameras that would have captured the Pentagon attack were taken from the owners of the cameras by the FBI and that it's impossible for the jet fuel to vaporize an entire plane.

There are too many facts left unaccounted for you to not even consider it being something other than the official explanation.

Kyle · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 2:28 pm

Agent Waffles wrote:

CreepyPirate wrote:

Rubbish to be honest, just some guys with too much time on there hands.

The guys who made Loose Change make some very interesting points, never before in history has a steel framed building collapsed due to a fire. As well as the fact that the records from security cameras that would have captured the Pentagon attack were taken from the owners of the cameras by the FBI and that it's impossible for the jet fuel to vaporize an entire plane.

There are too many facts left unaccounted for you to not even consider it being something other than the official explanation.

As a fellow firefighter i will say this. Fire can weaken steel. The top floors collapsed and the weight of it coming down cause the entire building to collapse. And thats some bs, ive seen with my own eyes fire burn down steal buildings. There will always been people in this would who will say anything that happens is a government conspiracy. The said it about peral harbor and when jfk was shot, there are even people who think VT shooting was Bushes plan. Your a dam fool for believing any of this rubbish. And the Pentagon, when jet fuel cant be put out with water, ateast not enought that a fire truck would carry, it takes FOAM. So firefighters have to protect the building and try to contain the blaze so in time it would melt the plane.

Brad · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 2:32 pm

Kyle wrote:

Agent Waffles wrote:

CreepyPirate wrote:

Rubbish to be honest, just some guys with too much time on there hands.

The guys who made Loose Change make some very interesting points, never before in history has a steel framed building collapsed due to a fire. As well as the fact that the records from security cameras that would have captured the Pentagon attack were taken from the owners of the cameras by the FBI and that it's impossible for the jet fuel to vaporize an entire plane.

There are too many facts left unaccounted for you to not even consider it being something other than the official explanation.

As a fellow firefighter i will say this. Fire can weaken steel. The top floors collapsed and the weight of it coming down cause the entire building to collapse. And thats some bs, ive seen with my own eyes fire burn down steal buildings. There will always been people in this would who will say anything that happens is a government conspiracy. The said it about peral harbor and when jfk was shot, there are even people who think VT shooting was Bushes plan. Your a dam fool for believing any of this rubbish. And the Pentagon, when jet fuel cant be put out with water, ateast not enought that a fire truck would carry, it takes FOAM. So firefighters have to protect the building and try to contain the blaze so in time it would melt the plane.

Some of the film is convincing, and you can't just write it off. Most of the stuff in Loose Change pretty much hinges on things that CAN'T be proved. So saying that's not possible/that is. Is stupid really.

Anubis · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 3:19 pm

Personally, I doubt it.
People who believe this are typically people who don't think rationally.

America is a very proud nation, I have serious doubts that they would kill hundreds of their own people, to start a war. Their economy was also damaged, however slightly, by the loss of the WTC buildings. America tends to only do things for a profit.

Besides, if it were a government conspiracy, this whole thing would have been silenced by now. :roll:

The Haysta · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 3:33 pm

Anubis wrote:

Personally, I doubt it.
People who believe this are typically people who don't think rationally.

America is a very proud nation, I have serious doubts that they would kill hundreds of their own people, to start a war. Their economy was also damaged, however slightly, by the loss of the WTC buildings. America tends to only do things for a profit.

Besides, if it were a government conspiracy, this whole thing would have been silenced by now. :roll:

Silencing it just gives more proof to devout 9/11 conspiracists.

Anyway, if they want to prove once and for all that the Pentagon attack was not a Global Hawk then they should screen the tapes taken by the government from the parking lot and some hotel. It's probably being enhanced using Adobe Photoshop Software anyway.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 4:03 pm

Agent Waffles wrote:

CreepyPirate wrote:

Rubbish to be honest, just some guys with too much time on there hands.

The guys who made Loose Change make some very interesting points, never before in history has a steel framed building collapsed due to a fire. As well as the fact that the records from security cameras that would have captured the Pentagon attack were taken from the owners of the cameras by the FBI and that it's impossible for the jet fuel to vaporize an entire plane.

There are too many facts left unaccounted for you to not even consider it being something other than the official explanation.

I'm sure the plane flying into it had a bigger part in the building falling down other than just causing a fire lol

And while there are questions left unanswered, the conspiracy theory on it is rubbish, the American government did not do it on purpose. MI6 knew about the London bombings, in fact the people that did the London bombings was under watch months in advance but it doesn't mean the UK deliberately let them do it.

Some things just cannot be explained, i don't know why the stuff they picked out hap pend but the point is terrorists did it, they aimed to kill people. Sometimes things happen, that are unexpected that shouldn't happen and that cannot be explained.

If you look into something deep enough you're gunna start finding some strange wacko story.

The Haysta · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 4:33 pm

Occasionally you get minor details that cannot be explained until a later date in certain events.

However

-Eyewitnesses claim the plane that crashed into the building we not commercial jets

-The video of Osama claiming to have destroyed the Twin Towers doesn't look like Osama.

-The squibs coming away from the WTC 20 floors below the destruction was taking place.

The only people allowed on ground Zero other than officials were demolition crew

-Floors at a time shut off while supposed 'renovations' were taking place inside WTC in which no one was allowed to set foot on any of the floors, this may seem usual but a lot of the time you are allowed to at least see the work that is going on.

-The domino effect of the towers, if a plane hit the a building it would have probably keeled over to one side, instead it lands in a neat pile of rubble

-A B-52 hit the empire state building (also steel framed), caused 1m in damage, 14 people died, but it still stands.

-In 2005 a steel framed building in Madrid burned for 24 hours and it didn't collapse, however the twin towers burned for 106 and 59 minutes and they collapsed.

Kyle · **Posted:** May 9th, 2007, 4:57 pm

Agent Waffles wrote:

Occasionally you get minor details that cannot be explained until a later date in certain events.

However

-Eyewitnesses claim the plane that crashed into the building we not commercial jets

The only people allowed on ground Zero other than officials were demolition crew

-Floors at a time shut off while supposed 'renovations' were taking place inside WTC in which no one was allowed to set foot on any of the floors, this may seem usual but a lot of the time you are allowed to at least see the work that is going on.

-The domino effect of the towers, if a plane hit the a building it would have probably keeled over to one side, instead it lands in a neat pile of rubble

-A B-52 hit the empire state building (also steel framed), caused 1m in damage, 14 people died, but it still stands.

Ok so lets adress these...

They have video proof of commercial air liners hitting the tower, they were shooting a commercial before the first plane hit.

Who the hell else do you want at ground zero, you have 1000+ firefighter searching for people under sharp metal rubble, do you really want the public walking around there?

Most constructions sites are shut down, too many people can get hurt walking threw a construction site.

The towers were designed to withstand winds on 400mph winds, Firefighters from inside said they could feal/see the building swaying when the plane hit. The plane was doing a little under 100knots.

A b-52 did not hit the tower, this is the most idiotic dam thing ive ever heard from anyone, a b-52 is americas largest bomber with 8 engines, A B-25 bomber hit the empire state building, this is a medium size WW2 bomber, keep in mind it had gasoline on board not jet fuel.

-B-52

B-25

A building of steal may have burned for 24 hours in spain, but it didnt have et fuel for a fuel. A normal fire burns at 2000 degrees with its at it max before a flashover. With jet fuel the flames can burn above or at 5000 degrees.

So, lets hear some more facts....