[Tiresias]

I used to think 9/11 conspiracy theorists were all tinfoil-hat-wearing kooks. Of course, some of them no doubt are, but nonetheless, there are actually a few unexplained anomalies. There's the fact that Bush claimed to have seen the first plane hit, as well as the fact that the BBC reported the of the collapse of Building 7 before it collapsed; and the compelling possibility that all three were controlled demolitions.

I thought it was time for a MacNN straw poll.

Where do you stand?

[Doofy]

I'm not sure what happened, but for sure there's some powerful dark forces at play somewhere in all this.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm not sure what happened, but for sure there's some powerful dark forces at play somewhere in all this.

I mean, this alone is shocking proof that the conspiracy theories are not entirely beyond the bounds of reason.

[Cipher13]

I believe the US Gvt. made or helped it happen to give them the justification to start instituting laws to allow the control of the country as a police state and to help erode the civil liberties they so vehemently seem to oppose, for some reason.

Who knows who "they" really are.

Watch the doco "Loose Change" on YouTube for some info.

[Doofy]

How come Benny Netanyahu, in London for a conference on 7/7, knew not to go out of his hotel room an hour before the events of the day transpired?

This is not just about the US. The puppet masters are playing their games everywhere.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Watch the doco "Loose Change" on YouTube for some info.

Narrated by a teenager whose voice has barely broke.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How come Benny Netanyahu, in London for a conference on 7/7, knew not to go out of his hotel room an hour before the events of the day transpired?

Wait. Which bomb went off outside his hotel room? What was his hotel room doing un the underground or on the street next to a bus?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

I believe the US Gvt. made or helped it happen to give them the justification to start instituting laws to allow the control of the country as a police state and to help erode the civil liberties they so vehemently seem to oppose, for some reason.

Oh right. Because eroding civil liberties is really good economic sense

If anything the Saudi and Pakistani elite made it happen because they wanted the US in the middle east to help get rid of the Taleban, Saddam and to surround Iran on both sides. For that theory you will find evidence.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Wait. Which bomb went off outside his hotel room? What was his hotel room doing un the underground or on the street next to a bus?

It was opposite one of the stations.
And it's a fact that he was supposed to leave early but was stopped from doing so by his bodyguard - before the events. So don't go using that pointy stick smiley.

Someone, somewhere in the security services/government had prior knowledge of 7/7.

[Chuckit]

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Narrated by a teenager whose voice has barely broke.

Irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Oh right. Because eroding civil liberties is really good economic sense

If anything the Saudi and Pakistani elite made it happen because they wanted the US in the middle east to help get rid of the Taleban, Saddam and to surround Iran on both sides. For that theory you will find evidence.

The economic situation has been discussed in another thread and the response given was ignored by you, so I won't waste my time again.

The onus is on you to provide said evidence it if that is so. There is also evidence for the theory I provided (check out the video for some information). Two theories. Both with evidence. You've provided no evidence to the contrary of my proposed theory. Are you just going to roll your eyes or are you gonna put your money where your mouth is?

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.

Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

You want me to watch Loose Change again? It was the most amateur schtick I've ever seen.

Get a clue guys. The hijackers are there, plain to see, on security camera footage boarding the plane. And Islamists call them the Glorious Twelve.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

You want me to watch Loose Change again? It was the most amateur schtick I've ever seen.

Get a clue guys. The hijackers are there, plain to see, on security camera footage boarding the plane. And Islamists call them the Glorious Twelve.

It isn't meant to be Die Hard 4. It's not an action movie. It's not an art film.

That's your argument? "Get a clue"?

So what if they're on security camera footage boarding the plane? What relevance does that have? Who knows who was giving them orders? Who knows if the footage is legitimate?

Is that all you've got?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.

HAHA. So simple. So true. The cartoons are killer.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

It isn't meant to be Die Hard 4. It's not an action movie. It's not an art film.

True. It's sh!t! It's paint by numbers stupidity.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

I believe the US Gvt. made or helped it happen to give them the justification to start instituting laws to allow the control of the country as a police state and to help erode the civil liberties they so vehemently seem to oppose, for some reason.

Who knows who "they" really are.

Watch the doco "Loose Change" on YouTube for some info.

I just watched Loose Change.

My first question is, how do you upload a 79 minute video to YouTube? I thought there was a 15 minute limit?

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.

...because somebody posted a few paragraphs ending with "eat my ****, losers"?

Wow. Good argument.

Here's a summary:

1. It's impossible because he's still alive.
Rebuttal: Stupid argument in the first place, but nonetheless, killing him would be the DUMBEST possible thing to do. That's not how you invalidate somebody's conspiracy theory... that would simply lend it credence.

2. Same argument as the first point.
Rebuttal: Same rebuttal as the first point.

3. It's impossible because there's a video floating around the Internet.
Rebuttal: Same again. "Removing" the video would lend it credence. Additionally, it would actually be more difficult to remove the video from the Internet given its decentralised nature than it would be to plan such a terrorist attack, contrary to what he says.

I hope you were posting that link for want of satire, because if you actually think it's convincing, well...

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

I just watched Loose Change.

My first question is, how do you upload a 79 minute video to YouTube? I thought there was a 15 minute limit?

Wouldn't have a damn clue. I don't use it except to watch videos.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

HAHA. So simple. So true. The cartoons are killer.

Figures you'd find such tripe convincing, given the **** you convince yourself of.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

True. It's sh!t! It's paint by numbers stupidity.

Does that mean you have no rebuttal? Nothing of value to say? No comeback? Nothing but ad-hominem remarks?

Aren't you sick of getting the **** kicked out of you here, yet? Analogika has been having a field day with you (or perhaps field days). Are you tired of being utterly stomped yet?

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Wouldn't have a damn clue. I don't use it except to watch videos.

But really—how'd he do it?

Video Upload (Step 1 of 2)
Uploading a video is a two-step process. On the next page, you'll be able to choose your video file and set the privacy settings. Uploads will usually take 1-5 minutes per MB on a high-speed connection, and converting your video takes a few minutes. All fields are required.

Your video is limited to 10 minutes and 100 MB. For more details about uploading videos, see the Help Center.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

But really—how'd he do it?

Perhaps it's sponsored or something? By YouTube? I really don't know.

[nonhuman]

You can get a professional account or something and then there's no limit to the videos you can upload.

[Tiresias]

Chuckit, Obi Wan's Ghost: Let's leave Loose Change out of the argument. But please explain why the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 prior to its collapse—and bear in mind: The collapse of Building 7 was not inferable from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

[Dakarʒ]

There's already a thread on that. Doofy started it a few months ago.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

Chuckit, Obi Wan's Ghost: Let's leave Loose Change out of the argument. But please explain why the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 prior to its collapse—and bear in mind: The collapse of Building 7 was not inferable from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

There were many rumors and reports going around (about all sorts of things) prior to the collapse of the building and probably because Building 7 had been evacuated the Beeb must have heard a story that it had collapsed. Because the reporter was British and didn't know exactly which building number 7 was, she didn't bother confirming it and went ahead reporting it even though the building was still standing right behind her.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Does that mean you have no rebuttal?

No, like I said. I'm looking for white people and Jews to blame for my problems so I'm a little slow in posting. I'm also scratching my head wondering how come in over almost six years you can't do a quick 30 second search for 9/11 conspiracy theory rebuttals. How about this for a start (and actually that's good enough for a total smackdown)

Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story - Popular Mechanics

Want more. Go to the NYFD and tell them what you believe about controlled explosions and other daft ideas.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

There were many rumors and reports going around (about all sorts of things) prior to the collapse of the building and probably because Building 7 had been evacuated the Beeb must have heard a story that it had collapsed. Because the reporter was British and didn't have know exactly which building number 7 was, she didn't bother confirming it and went ahead reporting it even though the building was still standing right behind her.

Pure, unadulterated conjecture, yet you state it as if it was fact.

Oh, and still, no responsess to my comments?

[Cipher13]

Ah there we go, more irrelevant tripe. So what you're really got to say, after stripping all the crap out, is:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

How about this for a start (and actually that's good enough for a total smackdown)

Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story - Popular Mechanics

I'll have a read and see what they have to say.

Unlike you, my mind is not closed; my opinion not static. I will believe and advocate what seems to be most likely. If I do find it convincing I'll happily admit so.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Oh, and still, no responsess to my comments?

You have your response, slowcoach. I have to go and blame white people and Jews for my problems. While I am at it I'll also invent lots of sh!t about George Bush wanting to be a dictator with permanent unlimited powers. But I'll totally ignore and even apologise for Islamist slaughter and terrorism, and I'll make up some more 9/11 conspiracies to ensure white people and Jews look reeeeaal bad. I mean, even the first attack on the WTC in the 90s just had to be done by white people and Jews!

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

I'll have a read and see what they have to say.

Unlike you, my mind is not closed

So why does it take you years and years to Google some facts up?

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Go to the NYFD and tell them what you believe about controlled explosions

Are you suggesting that a NYC fireman is gonna tear his leg off and beat him to death with it?

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Blah, blah, blah, blah, bullshit.

Okay, wonderful.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

So why does it take you years and years to Google some facts up?

More irrelevant garbge.

The issue at hand here is what is believed to have happened that day.

Try sticking with the topic of discussion.

[dcmacdaddy]

I voted Bush as the Masonic Lizard King but really I think the government did have something to do with it allowing it to happen, but more through incompetence and indifference than through active planning and participation. I think there were too many examples of in-action or missed/mis-interpreted information by the US military/security/intelligence apparatus. And because of these examples I think our government's inaction helped contribute to the likelihood of a terrorist attack being successful. Below is a list of some of those examples that I think should have been critical signs to those in US military/security/intelligence apparatus that something was up.

• The reports from the FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota about Arab men taking flying classes was suspect but FBI higher-ups did nothing with the information.
• Richard Clarke's warnings regarding terrorism concerns--when the new administration took office--seemed to be ignored as well.
• The PDB from 6 August 2001 that addressed concerns about imminent terrorist attacks on US soil.

I think the incoming administration was too obsessed with Saddam Hussein and Iraq to notice these other bad guys--who provd to be able to do more harm to us than Saddam Hussein ever could--and this narrow focus of attention on certain "bad guys" left us as a nation more vulnerable to terrorist actions than we would have been had they been less focused on Saddam Hussein. (This should not be read as to suggest that not paying attention to Saddam Hussein would have prevented the atacks of 9/11, but it should be read as saying that not paying attention to Saddam Hussein would have incrased the likelihood that those behind the 9/11 attacks would have been caught before-hand.)

[Cipher13]

I read the link that you posted, OWG, and honestly, most of the "claims" they refute don't factor in to why I believe what I believe. A lot of what they have said is supposedly verified by experts, but no reasoning is given - for example:

HQ ATTACK: Taken three days after 9/11, this photo shows the extent of the damage to the Pentagon, consistent with a fiery plane crash. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

This is an image caption on page 6. It states "...consistent with a fiery plane crash.", but they offer no reasons WHY it is "consistent with a fiery plane crash". They claim that two holes were punched in the wall; one around 12ft in diameter, and one around 75ft, though the latter collapsed soon after impact. The explanation for the former hole is penetration of landing gear; the latter, penetration of the fuselage, smaller than the wingspan of the plane because the wings would have been sheared off. I agree - obviously the wings would not punch holes in the wall resulting in a likeness of a cartoon character running through a wall (as they state).

So where are these sheared off wings, exactly? Where is the wreckage? Inside the structure? Why is there no evidence of this? No photos, no videos, not pre- or post-extraction? How is it that every single piece of the aircraft entered the structure through a hole smaller than its total size? The physics of that are incredibly unlikely.

They have an eyewitness that claims:

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

1. The photos don't show said marks.
2. He held the tail section in his hand? What was this, a model plane?
3. Despite any of that, where's the proof? This is all nothing without proof of the claims. Additionally, as the first engineer on the scene, it's entirely possible he has some involvement.

Additionally, they make no mention of the very small turbofan found, and complete lack of the two large turbofans. No mention about the location of the other 130 tons or so of wreckage that should've been somewhere. No comment on the lack of grazing on the grass despite a "landing gear" entrance hole at the ground level. No comment on anything that actually seems important.

They also state:

AFTERMATH: Wreckage from Flight 77 on the Pentagon's lawn--proof that a passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS

This "proof" is a tiny piece of twisted, unscorched, unscratched metal - not likely something that was in a "fiery plane crash" as they themselves term it.

Other sources claim that the plane was "vapourised" - one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Ever seen tons of titanium vapourise with a little jet fuel? No, nobody has. Ever.

Those are just the flaws I found in one section, after a single reading, and very little time given to it... all off the top of my head.

The article doesn't even MENTION anything like the put options placed on Boeing and American Airlines stock in the days leading up to the event.

In order to try to sound convincing, they made mention of only the comments they could refute with some measure of reason (or hope of ignorance of the audience).

Had popular mechanics come out and said anything other than "there's no conspiracy, folks", people would have taken it very poorly and their business may have suffered for it.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

The article doesn't even MENTION anything like the put options placed on Boeing and American Airlines stock in the days leading up to the event.

True.

That put option thing is difficult to explain.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

Chuckit, Obi Wan's Ghost: Let's leave Loose Change out of the argument. But please explain why the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 prior to its collapse—and bear in mind: The collapse of Building 7 was not inferable from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

A conspiracy that involves BBC news anchors is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Like they told them, "OK, y'all, we're planning to destroy Building 7. In a vast conspiracy like this, it's important that we get very timely coverage from the British equivalent of PBS, so we're going to take the huge risk of including you guys as well." Or maybe the BBC was just misinformed in a hectic situation, like the people who thought there was still another hijacked plane in the air. The only difference is that the BBC's misunderstanding happened to be right later, while the other rumor didn't pan out.

Simply put, all 9/11 conspiracy theories are simply too complicated to stand. You cannot have a conspiracy large enough to pull this off. The logistics are unimaginable.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I voted Bush as the Masonic Lizard King

Lizard Lord. Rumsfeld is the Lizard King.

[Cipher13]

Oh, re. the Pentagon thing, just while I'm on the topic, why not release the videos from multiple security cameras showing the plane hit the building? Why have them confiscated just minutes after the impact? Why have they only released a few frames, from a Pentagon camera, NONE of which show the plane at all?

Surely if it's so simple, releasing those videos would prove it... though 6 years on, they're no longer reliable, and could be completely doctored.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

A conspiracy that involves BBC news anchors is the most asinine thing I've ever heard.

Simply put, all 9/11 conspiracy theories are simply too complicated to stand. You cannot have a conspiracy large enough to pull this off. The logistics are unimaginable.

Who said anything about a conspiracy theory?

It's a fact that the BBC's reporting the collapse of Building 7 is unusual. But you argue that since explanation B is untenable, anomaly A is not an anomaly.

Edit: The consensus so far is that Bush is the shape-shifting Masonic Lizard Lord of the Zionist New World Order!

So why are we arguing?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Oh, re. the Pentagon thing, just while I'm on the topic, why not release the videos from multiple security cameras showing the plane hit the building? Why have them confiscated just minutes after the impact? Why have they only released a few frames, from a Pentagon camera, NONE of which show the plane at all?

Surely if it's so simple, releasing those videos would prove it... though 6 years on, they're no longer reliable, and could be completely doctored.

If it were a setup like you claim, they could have released doctored tapes immediately. More likely it's just the government being unnecessarily secretive like always.

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

Who said anything about a conspiracy theory?

It's a fact that the BBC's reporting the collapse of Building 7 is unusual. But you argue that since explanation B is untenable, anomaly A is not an anomaly.

You said something about a conspiracy theory, in the thread subject line. I argue that anomaly A does not seem particularly interesting.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If it were a setup like you claim, they could have released doctored tapes immediately. More likely it's just the government being unnecessarily secretive like always.

Such footage would be under incredible scrutiny. It's safer to simply confiscate them, as they did, and destroy them, which I imagine they did.

If there's nothing to hide, neither course of action is necessary (not to say they wouldn't confiscate them anyway, but nonetheless).

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

A conspiracy that involves BBC news anchors is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Like they told them, "OK, y'all, we're planning to destroy Building 7. In a vast conspiracy like this, it's important that we get very timely coverage from the British equivalent of PBS, so we're going to take the huge risk of including you guys as well." Or maybe the BBC was just misinformed in a hectic situation, like the people who thought there was still another hijacked plane in the air. The only difference is that the BBC's misunderstanding happened to be right later, while the other rumor didn't pan out.

Simply put, all 9/11 conspiracy theories are simply too complicated to stand. You cannot have a conspiracy large enough to pull this off. The logistics are unimaginable.

Yup. And furthermore, look at the allegations: that the planes shot missiles into the buildings just before they hit, or that the buildings were lined with explosives set to go off just as the planes hit the buildings. WTF? Why, if planes are being slammed into the buildings, would they need to shoot missiles and/or blow them up with explosives too? It's utterly ludicrous.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You said something about a conspiracy theory, in the thread subject line. I argue that anomaly A does not seem particularly interesting.

I said some stuff about 9/11 was weird. Conspiracy theory is the title of a poll to gauge MacNN opinion.

To be honest, I still don't know what to think.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

if planes are being slammed into the buildings, would they need to shoot missiles and/or blow them up with explosives too? It's utterly ludicrous.

The conspiracy theory goes something like this: The planes were used to explain the collapse; the explosives were used to cause the collapse (which the planes could not have caused).

Sheesh! Haven't you watched the masterpiece of investigative journalism that is Loose Change?

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Yup. And furthermore, look at the allegations: that the planes shot missiles into the buildings just before they hit, or that the buildings were lined with explosives set to go off just as the planes hit the buildings. WTF? Why, if planes are being slammed into the buildings, would they need to shoot missiles and/or blow them up with explosives too? It's utterly ludicrous.

Even I think that is absolute garbage, perhaps apart from the damage done to the Pentagon; I am very skeptical that it was caused by a 757. I have no doubt that two planes, and nothing more, flew into the WTC towers.

As for the controlled demolition, it's a possibility... though it certainly wasn't set off "on impact". I'm neutral on this. While video footage suggest it's possible, it's far from conclusive. I do highly doubt the towers would have collapsed otherwise, though, and especially with such order... and what about WTC7? What are the chances that the buildings between 7 and the towers were left so relatively untouched?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

This is an image caption on page 6. It states "...consistent with a fiery plane crash.", but they offer no reasons WHY it is "consistent with a fiery plane crash". They claim that two holes were punched in the wall; one around 12ft in diameter, and one around 75ft, though the latter collapsed soon after impact. The explanation for the former hole is penetration of landing gear; the latter, penetration of the fuselage, smaller than the wingspan of the plane because the wings would have been sheared off. I agree - obviously the wings would not punch holes in the wall resulting in a likeness of a cartoon character running through a wall (as they state).

So where are these sheared off wings, exactly? Where is the wreckage? Inside the structure? Why is there no evidence of this? No photos, no videos, not pre- or post-extraction? How is it that every single piece of the aircraft entered the structure through a hole smaller than its total size? The physics of that are incredibly unlikely.

So I want to get this straight: You don't believe that a plane crashed into the building?

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So I want to get this straight: You don't believe that a plane crashed into the building?

I don't believe a hijacked civillian 757 crashed into the building.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Additionally, they make no mention of the very small engine turbofan found, and complete lack of the two large turbofans.

Another of the conspiracy theorists' claims yet to be satisfactorily debunked.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

The conspiracy theory goes something like this: The planes were used to explain the collapse; the explosives were used to cause the collapse (which the planes could not have caused).

Sheesh! Haven't you watched the masterpiece of investigative journalism that is Loose Change?

That's what I don't get. It is truly horrifying to slam a plane full of people into a building full of people. A helluva lot of people are going to die, and it will be the worst single attack on US soil in history. It will either destroy the building or do such serious damage to it that it wouldn't be salvageable. What's so special about using explosives in the buildings too? Why bother with this extra demolition or missile that could ruin everything when the basic action of slamming the plane into the buildings is already 90% of the way there anyway? And if they didn't think slamming planes into buildings would do enough damage, how could they be sure that using explosives would be enough to do the trick? And if the explosives were powerful enough, why bother with the planes at all? It just doesn't make sense, even from the point of view of a conspirator.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

I don't believe a hijacked civillian 757 crashed into the building.

Then what about all the people on those planes? What about the hundreds and probably thousands of witnesses who saw it? What about the video footage, from a number of different sources, especially of the second WTC tower, since many people and news teams were filming the crash from the first tower?