Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Steven.. my opinion about 9-11, for what it's worth.

9-11 was clearly carried out by Arab terrorists co-ordinated by Usama bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan (please note that in what follows, the term "Arab Terrorist" should be read as synonymous with "Islamic Extremist". I’ve spared the reader the tedium of the correct full term "Arab Islamic Terrorist Extremist")

These are my reasons:

Only Arab terrorists would be clever enough to either to amend the laws of nature on 9-11, or to rig WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 for demolition, accessing the buildings well in advance to plant the explosive devices (buildings leased by the property magnates Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy, both well-known Moslem sympathizers).

How exactly did they "amend the laws of nature. Got any evidence to support planted explosives?

Only Arab terrorists would have been able to get through the airports used by the targeted planes on 9-11 without leaving a record on numerous CCTV tapes. (Arab terrorists have developed extra skills over the years on how to fool Israeli-owned security companies)

Sid, I have seen cctv footage of Atta's crew, are you saying you have not?

Only Arab terrorists would have been sneaky enough to make millions by 9-11 related insider-trading - then arrange with the authorities to quietly shelve the subsequent investigations and ensure there was no effective follow-up to the story in the western mass media.

I assume you mean the "Put options" I believe the ammount was less than four million, chickenfeed by standard stock market deals, where trillions cross the globe on a daily basis. You need to provide evidence that this sort of thing is unusual, and could not have had any other reason.

Only Arab terrorists would have been sneaky enough to persuade the FBI to confiscate all the private CCTV tapes taken close to the Pentagon attack and to withhold them for at least five years.

Yep, i have no idea why we have not seen this footage, but if you are using this to cast doubt on what hit the Pentagon how do you account for the OVERWELMING eyewitness testimony that a very large aircraft hit the Pentagon.

Only Arab terrorists would be devious enough to try to frame themselves, soon afterwards, during the now widely-overlooked "anthrax scare" by sending a letter to the FBI wrongly accusing an Arab scientist of the attacks.

Apples and oranges, i am with you in as much as I firmly believe that the anthrax attacks were domestic in origin, but I fail to see how this casts doubt on who perpetratored 911

Only Arab terrorists would have been clever enough to tip off a few Mossad agents on 9-11 and arrange for them to be observed fooling around and making whoopee while the towers smoldered.

Do you really believe, that the CIA, or whoever informed this bunch of students what the plans where for that day?to what purpose, so they could make themselves conspicous? what sense does this make?Do you have any proof that they were Mossad agents.

Only Arab terrorists would have been able to manipulate Mossad into conducting a major operation in the USA prior to 9-11 - then ensure that some 200 of them were sent back to the USA without charge (including the previously mentioned team operating in NYC).

Any supporting evidence to back up the above

Only Arab terrorists can carry out aeronautically impossible feats with Boeing jets - then make the craft disappear without trace on impact at at least one of the crash locations (the Pentagon).

In what sense where these "Aeronautically impossible"are you a pilot? I have seen no account published by experts that claims that the deed was impossible, or even very difficult. (Hanjour excepted) The flying was unrecoverable, not a problem if you dont intend to recover the situation.

Only Arab terrorists could arrange for the willful destruction of forensic evidence such as all the steel from the WTC towers in the immediate aftermath of the attacks - destruction of evidence that was protested at the time by professional firefighters.

Yep, I agree. Very strange behaviour. Those responsible for this act should be made to account for their disgraceful behaviour. Although I think the eternal profit motive may be to blame.

Only Arab terrorists would arrange for a cavalcade of Israeli and 'neocon' commentators to appear on western mainstream media in the hours following the attacks, blaming Arabs for the crimes.

Could it be because Arabs WERE to blame for the crime? I detest Bush, and the whole Neo-Con agenda but that hardly constitutes evidence.

Only Arab terrorists would ensure their own names - as perpetrators - were widely disseminated by the western mass media in the hours following the attacks (they learnt this trick from Lee Harvey Oswald).

Any firm evidence of foul play here?

Only Arab terrorists would have chosen to perpetrate such an atrocity in the days following the UN conference on Racism in South Africa, where the behavior of Israel and its US poodle was widely criticized and the pro-Israeli extremism of these two nations were rejected by rest of the world community. The dastardly action by Arab terrorists in carrying out the 9-11 atrocities ensured the momentum of the Palestinian's Second Intifada was blunted and brought maximum pressure to bear on supporters of Palestine - especially Arab nations and communities such as Saudi Arabia – to cease funding 'Arab Terrorism' in any form (such as providing assistance to Palestinian or Lebanese resistance fighters).

It also stopped the Atni globalisation movement in its tracks, it was growing nicely after Seattle, but virtually disappeared after 911. i might just as well claim that that was the reason for the attacks. i dont suppose you have any actual evidence to back this up?

After all, only Arabs would be mad enough to do this to themselves – and all because they “hate our freedoms!”

Are you claiming that suicide bombers dont exist?The reason for the attacks had nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with US middle eastern policy over the last fifty years.

I could continue... but is there really any need?

It's as clear as the case of RFK's murder - obviously, 9-11 was also the handiwork of an angry Arab nutcase/s with truly magical powers.

It's so OBVIOUS who was responsible for 9-11 that this truly is a "case closed" (to coin a phrase popularized by the well-known Zionist Gerald Posner in relation to another, earlier crime against the people of the USA and the world).

Surely the real question to be asked is whether we ordinary folk should be allowed to discuss it at all?

History has spoken, after all.

Shouldn't we be concerned that dissenting views about 9-11 might be racist and conducive to public disorder?

What if there’s another terrorist outrage, this time carried out by crazed "9-11 Truthseekers" working in cahoots with Arab terrorists. That would surely demonstrate beyond doubt the need to ban dissident views on this topic for public safety reasons.

Now, I realize it would be WITHOUT PRECEDENT to stifle free and open discussion about ANY historical topic and to subject ANY dissident historians to trial by media and imprisonment. Yet since the truth about 9-11 is a given, anyone who doubts it must have a pathological condition brought about by years of irrational hatred (although it may be OK to imagine that the wicked Bush Administration might have pulled a LIHOP*).

Now, back to my TV. Observing recent events in Lebanon and the Gaza, I reflect on how lucky we are in the western world to be Israel’s allies in the “War on Terror”.

It is so great to be on the side of peace, truth, freedom and justice and to see “our side” in action again, targeting terrorists with “precision operations” and “surgical strikes”! A little collateral damage here and there is surely a small price to pay in furtherance of this noble enterprise.

Of course the real question is, If Terrorists didn't fly those planes, who did?and if you are going to claim they were remotely controlled please provide evidence that such technology exists, and how it was fitted without the pilots noticing.

regards, Steve.

____________________________________

* LIHOP = "Let it happen on purpose". Under this scenario, elements in the US Government had advanced warning of the impending 9-11 attacks by superhuman Arab terrorists, but overlooked the warnings for various sneaky reasons mainly driven by the interests of the American oil industry.

[Len Colby]

Sid wrote

"Only Arab terrorists would be clever enough to either to amend the laws of nature on 9-11, or to rig WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 for demolition, accessing the buildings well in advance to plant the explosive devices (buildings leased by the property magnates Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy, both well-known Moslem sympathizers)."

What evidence do you have that for the buildings to have collapsed the way they did without explosives would violate the law of nature? Why doesn't anyone with relevant expertise any where in the world back this notion if it is true?

"Only Arab terrorists would have been able to get through the airports used by the targeted planes on 9-11 without leaving a record on numerous CCTV tapes. (Arab terrorists have developed extra skills over the years on how to fool Israeli-owned security companies)"

LOL

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/nyc-hijackers-gallery,0,7162333.photogallery?coll=chi-news-hed&index=1

"Only Arab terrorists would have been sneaky enough to make millions by 9-11 related insider-trading - then arrange with the authorities to quietly shelve the subsequent investigations and ensure there was no effective follow-up to the story in the western mass media."

http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

"Only Arab terrorists would have been sneaky enough to persuade the FBI to confiscate all the private CCTV tapes taken close to the Pentagon attack and to withhold them for at least five years."

At least 5 years? Is it 9/11/06 already?

Tapes or no tapes the evidence including dozens of eyewitness accounts and 757 wreckage at the scene support the near universally accepted version of events.

"Only Arab terrorists would be devious enough to try to frame themselves, soon afterwards, during the now widely-overlooked "anthrax scare" by sending a letter to the FBI wrongly accusing an Arab scientist of the attacks."

Can you show any connection between these events? Do have any evidence who sent the letter? What role did this letter which was only sent moths after the fact play in ascribing blaming to Arabs for 9/11? I don't remember Arabs either collectively or individually being blamed. The suspect who got most attention was not an Arab.

"Only Arab terrorists would have been clever enough to tip off a few Mossad agents on 9-11 and arrange for them to be observed fooling around and making whoopee while the towers smoldered."

-There's no solid evidence they were Mossad agents

-Even if they were Mossad there's no evidence they knew about the attacks before hand, lots of people videotaped the towers that day.

-Their behavior hardly seems consistent with Mossad secret agents on a super secret mission, they did everything possible to call attention to themselves and be conspicuous.

"Only Arab terrorists would have been able to manipulate Mossad into conducting a major operation in the USA prior to 9-11 - then ensure that some 200 of them were sent back to the USA without charge (including the previously mentioned team operating in NYC)."

Do you have any evidence of a pre 9/11 major Mossad operation in the US? Lots of foreigners were deported post 9/11 without charge, many Israelis were locked up for months on visa violations.

"Only Arab terrorists can carry out aeronautically impossible feats with Boeing jets - then make the craft disappear without trace at two on impact at two locations (the Pentagon and Shanksville)"

What aeronautically impossible feats occurred on 9/11?

Numerous Boeing 757 parts were found in Shanksville and at the Pentagon, crashes at over 500 mph don't tend to leave large parts. There is overwhelming eyewitness evidence that 757s crashed at those locations.

"Only Arab terrorists could arrange for the willful destruction of forensic evidence such as all the steel from the WTC towers in the immediate aftermath of the attacks - destruction of evidence that was protested at the time by professional firefighters."

- Not all the steel was 'recycled'

- It wasn't done "in the immediate aftermath of the attacks" the lat beams were only removed in late May 2002 over 8 moths after the attacks, there was a period in which there was fairly open access to Ground Zero, no photos showing use of explosives or thermite were taken, no experts said they saw signs of their use. Some experts said specifically they saw no signs of this.

- Name one fire fighter who objected

- The recycling was ordered by the NYC government. It seem to have been done for two reasons 1) to speed up the clean up of Ground Zero 2) money.

- The head of the ACSE team that investigated the collapses testified that this did not impede their investigation. http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm

"Only Arab terrorists would arrange for a cavalcade of Israeli and 'neocon' commentators to appear on western mainstream media in the hours following the attacks, blaming Arabs for the crimes."

Proves nothing and commentators who weren't "Israeli" or "'neocon'" said Arabs were to blame that was clear fairly early on.

"Only Arab terrorists would ensure their own names - as perpetrators - were widely disseminated by the western mass media in the hours following the attacks (they learnt this trick from Lee Harvey Oswald)."

Terrorists normally want it to be known that they carried out their acts. Obviously the names of the perpetrators of such an act would be widely disseminated no matter what their ethnicity; there you go again with your cloaked anti-Semitism.

The LHO analogy is a very poor one the hijackers knew they'd be dead, they knew that many would see them as heroes, Atta's dad thinks he's a hero

"Only Arab terrorists would have chosen to perpetrate such an atrocity in the days following the UN conference on Racism in South Africa, where the behavior of Israel and its US poodle was widely criticized and the pro-Israeli extremism of these two nations were rejected by rest of the world community. The dastardly action by Arab terrorists in carrying out the 9-11 atrocities ensured the momentum of the Palestinian's Second Intifada was blunted and brought maximum pressure to bear on supporters of Palestine - especially Arab nations and communities such as Saudi Arabia – to cease funding 'Arab Terrorism' in any form (such as providing assistance to Palestinian or Lebanese resistance fighters)."

No matter when these attacks happened a suspicious person could claim the timing was very "convenient" for whom ever they imagined really carried it out. The pressure on Arab nations and organizations to top funding terrorism would have happen independent of when they occurred. The approval of many Palestinians, Islamic/Arab radicals and their supports was a major part of this. There was little support (none of it governmental) in the West for the conference's criticism of Israel.

"After all, only Arabs would be mad enough to do this to themselves – and all because they "hate our freedoms!""

Arabs like any other group don't act as a collective whole. Only bigots say 9/11 was the work of "the Arabs", it was carried out by a small group of extremists.

I agree with Chomsky and Said among others on this the US's policy in the Middle East was a major factor. Perhaps they underestimated the US's response (they might not have know the extent of casualties) they might not have cared; they might not have anticipated the extent of international support the US would receive. They might have expected that the US would dare invade Afghanistan or if they did get stuck in "another Vietnam" just like the Soviets did or the US is now in Iraq. I think what's happening in Lebanon now is instructive. I agree that Israel's response is a gross over reaction but shouldn't Hizbollah have expected something along these lines? Either they miscalculated or they didn't care or they wanted Israel to do what it' doing.

"It's so OBVIOUS who was responsible for 9-11 that this truly is a "case closed" (to coin a phrase popularized by the well-known Zionist Gerald Posner in relation to another, earlier crime against the people of the USA and the world)."

What do Posner's political views concerning the Middle East have to do with the title of his book about the assassination? Your prejudices are showing, perhaps you should start a thread to support your earlier stated theory that Jews are conspiring to take over the world, hey I already did it for you! http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7460

"Surely the real question to be asked is whether we ordinary folk should be allowed to discuss it at all?"

Strawman - No one has questioned your or anybody else's right to question this. Jim Hoffman says he gets harassed much more by other members of the "truth" movement than by supporters of the "official theory".

"Shouldn't we be concerned that dissenting views about 9-11 might be racist and conducive to public disorder?"

Another strawman no one (that I've seen) is saying that questioning 9/11 even blaming Israel is inherently "racist" (i.e. anti-Semitic) or "conducive to public disorder" at least no one has on this forum. I have seen no evidence that Steve (Rymer), Jack or Ron or the vast majority of other members of the "truth movement" are anti-Semitic but of course anti-Semitic people and groups are a significant part of the "movement" though you aren't as blatant or extreme about it as others you seem to belong to that minority. Note that all the villains you named have the same ethnic background

[Sid Walker]

Steven.. my opinion about 9-11, for what it's worth.

9-11 was clearly carried out by Arab terrorists co-ordinated by Usama bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan (please note that in what follows, the term "Arab Terrorist" should be read as synonymous with "Islamic Extremist". I’ve spared the reader the tedium of the correct full term "Arab Islamic Terrorist Extremist")

These are my reasons:

Only Arab terrorists would be clever enough to either to amend the laws of nature on 9-11, or to rig WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 for demolition, accessing the buildings well in advance to plant the explosive devices (buildings leased by the property magnates Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy, both well-known Moslem sympathizers).

How exactly did they "amend the laws of nature. Got any evidence to support planted explosives?

Only Arab terrorists would have been able to get through the airports used by the targeted planes on 9-11 without leaving a record on numerous CCTV tapes. (Arab terrorists have developed extra skills over the years on how to fool Israeli-owned security companies)

Sid, I have seen cctv footage of Atta's crew, are you saying you have not?

Only Arab terrorists would have been sneaky enough to make millions by 9-11 related insider-trading - then arrange with the authorities to quietly shelve the subsequent investigations and ensure there was no effective follow-up to the story in the western mass media.

I assume you mean the "Put options" I believe the ammount was less than four million, chickenfeed by standard stock market deals, where trillions cross the globe on a daily basis. You need to provide evidence that this sort of thing is unusual, and could not have had any other reason.

Only Arab terrorists would have been sneaky enough to persuade the FBI to confiscate all the private CCTV tapes taken close to the Pentagon attack and to withhold them for at least five years.

Yep, i have no idea why we have not seen this footage, but if you are using this to cast doubt on what hit the Pentagon how do you account for the OVERWELMING eyewitness testimony that a very large aircraft hit the Pentagon.

Only Arab terrorists would be devious enough to try to frame themselves, soon afterwards, during the now widely-overlooked "anthrax scare" by sending a letter to the FBI wrongly accusing an Arab scientist of the attacks.

Apples and oranges, i am with you in as much as I firmly believe that the anthrax attacks were domestic in origin, but I fail to see how this casts doubt on who perpetratored 911

Only Arab terrorists would have been clever enough to tip off a few Mossad agents on 9-11 and arrange for them to be observed fooling around and making whoopee while the towers smoldered.

Do you really believe, that the CIA, or whoever informed this bunch of students what the plans where for that day?to what purpose, so they could make themselves conspicous? what sense does this make?Do you have any proof that they were Mossad agents.

Only Arab terrorists would have been able to manipulate Mossad into conducting a major operation in the USA prior to 9-11 - then ensure that some 200 of them were sent back to the USA without charge (including the previously mentioned team operating in NYC).

Any supporting evidence to back up the above

Only Arab terrorists can carry out aeronautically impossible feats with Boeing jets - then make the craft disappear without trace on impact at at least one of the crash locations (the Pentagon).

In what sense where these "Aeronautically impossible"are you a pilot? I have seen no account published by experts that claims that the deed was impossible, or even very difficult. (Hanjour excepted) The flying was unrecoverable, not a problem if you dont intend to recover the situation.

Only Arab terrorists could arrange for the willful destruction of forensic evidence such as all the steel from the WTC towers in the immediate aftermath of the attacks - destruction of evidence that was protested at the time by professional firefighters.

Yep, I agree. Very strange behaviour. Those responsible for this act should be made to account for their disgraceful behaviour. Although I think the eternal profit motive may be to blame.

Only Arab terrorists would arrange for a cavalcade of Israeli and 'neocon' commentators to appear on western mainstream media in the hours following the attacks, blaming Arabs for the crimes.

Could it be because Arabs WERE to blame for the crime? I detest Bush, and the whole Neo-Con agenda but that hardly constitutes evidence.

Only Arab terrorists would ensure their own names - as perpetrators - were widely disseminated by the western mass media in the hours following the attacks (they learnt this trick from Lee Harvey Oswald).

Any firm evidence of foul play here?

Only Arab terrorists would have chosen to perpetrate such an atrocity in the days following the UN conference on Racism in South Africa, where the behavior of Israel and its US poodle was widely criticized and the pro-Israeli extremism of these two nations were rejected by rest of the world community. The dastardly action by Arab terrorists in carrying out the 9-11 atrocities ensured the momentum of the Palestinian's Second Intifada was blunted and brought maximum pressure to bear on supporters of Palestine - especially Arab nations and communities such as Saudi Arabia – to cease funding 'Arab Terrorism' in any form (such as providing assistance to Palestinian or Lebanese resistance fighters).

It also stopped the Atni globalisation movement in its tracks, it was growing nicely after Seattle, but virtually disappeared after 911. i might just as well claim that that was the reason for the attacks. i dont suppose you have any actual evidence to back this up?

After all, only Arabs would be mad enough to do this to themselves – and all because they “hate our freedoms!”

Are you claiming that suicide bombers dont exist?The reason for the attacks had nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with US middle eastern policy over the last fifty years.

I could continue... but is there really any need?

It's as clear as the case of RFK's murder - obviously, 9-11 was also the handiwork of an angry Arab nutcase/s with truly magical powers.

It's so OBVIOUS who was responsible for 9-11 that this truly is a "case closed" (to coin a phrase popularized by the well-known Zionist Gerald Posner in relation to another, earlier crime against the people of the USA and the world).

Surely the real question to be asked is whether we ordinary folk should be allowed to discuss it at all?

History has spoken, after all.

Shouldn't we be concerned that dissenting views about 9-11 might be racist and conducive to public disorder?

What if there’s another terrorist outrage, this time carried out by crazed "9-11 Truthseekers" working in cahoots with Arab terrorists. That would surely demonstrate beyond doubt the need to ban dissident views on this topic for public safety reasons.

Now, I realize it would be WITHOUT PRECEDENT to stifle free and open discussion about ANY historical topic and to subject ANY dissident historians to trial by media and imprisonment. Yet since the truth about 9-11 is a given, anyone who doubts it must have a pathological condition brought about by years of irrational hatred (although it may be OK to imagine that the wicked Bush Administration might have pulled a LIHOP*).

Now, back to my TV. Observing recent events in Lebanon and the Gaza, I reflect on how lucky we are in the western world to be Israel’s allies in the “War on Terror”.

It is so great to be on the side of peace, truth, freedom and justice and to see “our side” in action again, targeting terrorists with “precision operations” and “surgical strikes”! A little collateral damage here and there is surely a small price to pay in furtherance of this noble enterprise.

Of course the real question is, If Terrorists didn't fly those planes, who did?and if you are going to claim they were remotely controlled please provide evidence that such technology exists, and how it was fitted without the pilots noticing.

regards, Steve.

____________________________________

* LIHOP = "Let it happen on purpose". Under this scenario, elements in the US Government had advanced warning of the impending 9-11 attacks by superhuman Arab terrorists, but overlooked the warnings for various sneaky reasons mainly driven by the interests of the American oil industry.

Hi again Steve and apologies for the delay in replying.

I don't mean to be rude. You ask a lot of good questions - but I don't have time, right now, to provide blow by blow responses to them. I'll aim to do so later - atr least to fill in some gaps if you identify them.

For now, I strongly encourage you (and anyone else interested in 9-11) to check out the Physics911.net website.

The site takes the Sherlock Holmes approach of considering what cannot possibly have happened - then speculating on what may have happened. You won't find dogmatic assertions of absolute knowledge there. You will find some good scientific analysis - and plenty of references. If you wade through some of the articles, I believe some of your questions - such as the feasibility of remote control guideance of the planes - may be answered.

There are many other sites about 9-11. Some are good. Some are not so good. Some are deliberate disinformation.

I'm not commenting about other sites - the field is too vast and complex to cover in brief, even if I had the ability to do it. I do, however, commend this particular site. The scientist ultimately repsonsible for it, Canadian mathematician A.K. Dewdney, is a remarkable intellect and a very fine human being.

[Sid Walker]

Steven.. my opinion about 9-11, for what it's worth.

9-11 was clearly carried out by Arab terrorists co-ordinated by Usama bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan (please note that in what follows, the term "Arab Terrorist" should be read as synonymous with "Islamic Extremist". I’ve spared the reader the tedium of the correct full term "Arab Islamic Terrorist Extremist")

These are my reasons:

Only Arab terrorists would be clever enough to either to amend the laws of nature on 9-11, or to rig WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 for demolition, accessing the buildings well in advance to plant the explosive devices (buildings leased by the property magnates Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy, both well-known Moslem sympathizers).

How exactly did they "amend the laws of nature. Got any evidence to support planted explosives?

Only Arab terrorists would have been able to get through the airports used by the targeted planes on 9-11 without leaving a record on numerous CCTV tapes. (Arab terrorists have developed extra skills over the years on how to fool Israeli-owned security companies)

Sid, I have seen cctv footage of Atta's crew, are you saying you have not?

Only Arab terrorists would have been sneaky enough to make millions by 9-11 related insider-trading - then arrange with the authorities to quietly shelve the subsequent investigations and ensure there was no effective follow-up to the story in the western mass media.

I assume you mean the "Put options" I believe the ammount was less than four million, chickenfeed by standard stock market deals, where trillions cross the globe on a daily basis. You need to provide evidence that this sort of thing is unusual, and could not have had any other reason.

Only Arab terrorists would have been sneaky enough to persuade the FBI to confiscate all the private CCTV tapes taken close to the Pentagon attack and to withhold them for at least five years.

Yep, i have no idea why we have not seen this footage, but if you are using this to cast doubt on what hit the Pentagon how do you account for the OVERWELMING eyewitness testimony that a very large aircraft hit the Pentagon.

Only Arab terrorists would be devious enough to try to frame themselves, soon afterwards, during the now widely-overlooked "anthrax scare" by sending a letter to the FBI wrongly accusing an Arab scientist of the attacks.

Apples and oranges, i am with you in as much as I firmly believe that the anthrax attacks were domestic in origin, but I fail to see how this casts doubt on who perpetratored 911

Only Arab terrorists would have been clever enough to tip off a few Mossad agents on 9-11 and arrange for them to be observed fooling around and making whoopee while the towers smoldered.

Do you really believe, that the CIA, or whoever informed this bunch of students what the plans where for that day?to what purpose, so they could make themselves conspicous? what sense does this make?Do you have any proof that they were Mossad agents.

Only Arab terrorists would have been able to manipulate Mossad into conducting a major operation in the USA prior to 9-11 - then ensure that some 200 of them were sent back to the USA without charge (including the previously mentioned team operating in NYC).

Any supporting evidence to back up the above

Only Arab terrorists can carry out aeronautically impossible feats with Boeing jets - then make the craft disappear without trace on impact at at least one of the crash locations (the Pentagon).

In what sense where these "Aeronautically impossible"are you a pilot? I have seen no account published by experts that claims that the deed was impossible, or even very difficult. (Hanjour excepted) The flying was unrecoverable, not a problem if you dont intend to recover the situation.

Only Arab terrorists could arrange for the willful destruction of forensic evidence such as all the steel from the WTC towers in the immediate aftermath of the attacks - destruction of evidence that was protested at the time by professional firefighters.

Yep, I agree. Very strange behaviour. Those responsible for this act should be made to account for their disgraceful behaviour. Although I think the eternal profit motive may be to blame.

Only Arab terrorists would arrange for a cavalcade of Israeli and 'neocon' commentators to appear on western mainstream media in the hours following the attacks, blaming Arabs for the crimes.

Could it be because Arabs WERE to blame for the crime? I detest Bush, and the whole Neo-Con agenda but that hardly constitutes evidence.

Only Arab terrorists would ensure their own names - as perpetrators - were widely disseminated by the western mass media in the hours following the attacks (they learnt this trick from Lee Harvey Oswald).

Any firm evidence of foul play here?

Only Arab terrorists would have chosen to perpetrate such an atrocity in the days following the UN conference on Racism in South Africa, where the behavior of Israel and its US poodle was widely criticized and the pro-Israeli extremism of these two nations were rejected by rest of the world community. The dastardly action by Arab terrorists in carrying out the 9-11 atrocities ensured the momentum of the Palestinian's Second Intifada was blunted and brought maximum pressure to bear on supporters of Palestine - especially Arab nations and communities such as Saudi Arabia – to cease funding 'Arab Terrorism' in any form (such as providing assistance to Palestinian or Lebanese resistance fighters).

It also stopped the Atni globalisation movement in its tracks, it was growing nicely after Seattle, but virtually disappeared after 911. i might just as well claim that that was the reason for the attacks. i dont suppose you have any actual evidence to back this up?

After all, only Arabs would be mad enough to do this to themselves – and all because they “hate our freedoms!”

Are you claiming that suicide bombers dont exist?The reason for the attacks had nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with US middle eastern policy over the last fifty years.

I could continue... but is there really any need?

It's as clear as the case of RFK's murder - obviously, 9-11 was also the handiwork of an angry Arab nutcase/s with truly magical powers.

It's so OBVIOUS who was responsible for 9-11 that this truly is a "case closed" (to coin a phrase popularized by the well-known Zionist Gerald Posner in relation to another, earlier crime against the people of the USA and the world).

Surely the real question to be asked is whether we ordinary folk should be allowed to discuss it at all?

History has spoken, after all.

Shouldn't we be concerned that dissenting views about 9-11 might be racist and conducive to public disorder?

What if there’s another terrorist outrage, this time carried out by crazed "9-11 Truthseekers" working in cahoots with Arab terrorists. That would surely demonstrate beyond doubt the need to ban dissident views on this topic for public safety reasons.

Now, I realize it would be WITHOUT PRECEDENT to stifle free and open discussion about ANY historical topic and to subject ANY dissident historians to trial by media and imprisonment. Yet since the truth about 9-11 is a given, anyone who doubts it must have a pathological condition brought about by years of irrational hatred (although it may be OK to imagine that the wicked Bush Administration might have pulled a LIHOP*).

Now, back to my TV. Observing recent events in Lebanon and the Gaza, I reflect on how lucky we are in the western world to be Israel’s allies in the “War on Terror”.

It is so great to be on the side of peace, truth, freedom and justice and to see “our side” in action again, targeting terrorists with “precision operations” and “surgical strikes”! A little collateral damage here and there is surely a small price to pay in furtherance of this noble enterprise.

Of course the real question is, If Terrorists didn't fly those planes, who did?and if you are going to claim they were remotely controlled please provide evidence that such technology exists, and how it was fitted without the pilots noticing.

regards, Steve.

____________________________________

* LIHOP = "Let it happen on purpose". Under this scenario, elements in the US Government had advanced warning of the impending 9-11 attacks by superhuman Arab terrorists, but overlooked the warnings for various sneaky reasons mainly driven by the interests of the American oil industry.

Hi again Steve and apologies for the delay in replying.

I don't mean to be rude. You ask a lot of good questions - but I don't have time, right now, to provide blow by blow responses to them. I'll aim to do so later - atr least to fill in some gaps if you identify them.

For now, I strongly encourage you (and anyone else interested in 9-11) to check out the Physics911.net website.

The site takes the Sherlock Holmes approach of considering what cannot possibly have happened - then speculating on what may have happened. You won't find dogmatic assertions of absolute knowledge there. You will find some good scientific analysis - and plenty of references. If you wade through some of the articles, I believe some of your questions - such as the feasibility of remote control guideance of the planes - may be answered.

There are many other sites about 9-11. Some are good. Some are not so good. Some are deliberate disinformation.

I'm not commenting about other sites - the field is too vast and complex to cover in brief, even if I had the ability to do it. I do, however, commend this particular site. The scientist ultimately repsonsible for it, Canadian mathematician A.K. Dewdney, is a remarkable intellect and has done outstanding work in the field of scenario building, in an attempt to marry the known facts about 9-11 with the known laws of nature.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Sid, allow me to lay out what I believe is the main problem the "Inside Jobbers" have, namely complete lack of relevant expert support for their views.

"The Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition" And your demolition expert to cite is.

" The Towers would not have collapsed from aircraft collision alone" your stuctural engineer/architect experts are.

" No pilot could have flown the planes in the manner witnessed on 911" Got any pilots to cite.

" Any 747 hitting the Pentagon would have done much more damage" Structural engineer expert is.

I could go on, but I guess you get the point. When I call for relevant expert testimony, I of course mean expert in the relevant field, mathamatician's, or Psychologists may be very intellegent people IN THEIR FIELD. But once they step outside their field of experience, they lose the right to be called expert and their authority is greatly diminished.

[Len Colby]

Sid, allow me to lay out what I believe is the main problem the "Inside Jobbers" have, namely complete lack of relevant expert support for their views.

"The Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition" And your demolition expert to cite is.

" The Towers would not have collapsed from aircraft collision alone" your stuctural engineer/architect experts are.

" No pilot could have flown the planes in the manner witnessed on 911" Got any pilots to cite.

" Any 747 hitting the Pentagon would have done much more damage" Structural engineer expert is.

I could go on, but I guess you get the point. When I call for relevant expert testimony, I of course mean expert in the relevant field, mathamatician's, or Psychologists may be very intellegent people IN THEIR FIELD. But once they step outside their field of experience, they lose the right to be called expert and their authority is greatly diminished.

Steve the "inside jobbers" actuall have one qualified pilot who says that the 757 (not 747) that hit the Pentagon could not have flown in the manner described but numerous other pilots say he's wrong. This came up in another thread

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I guess we can give them one Len. There is an airfield very close to the Hospital I work at, I have talked to at least five Pilots about this,(Plus many who biuld/ maintain the Planes) not one has any doubt that the feats were quite easily accomplishable.

[Steve Rymer]

Stephen,

I agree that without expert testimony our case is difficult to prove, but there is considerable reluctance on the part of experts to consider an alternative explaination, let alone associate themselves with an alternative conclusion.

Common sense tells me that the pancake theory is rubbish:

For the towers to collapse in the manner they did (pancake theory) - all the steel would have had to have been compromised in the way you suggest (and probably to the same degree). Which it was not. It was designed to hold the weight of the building above and like all contruction projects was over-engineered. The massive kinetic energy you refer to would only have been applicable at the final moment of collapse and only at the base of the towers. For all floors whose steel was unaffected by fire/impact (most of them) - they would have offered considerable resistance to the falling matter above. This is the reason why controlled demolitions destroy the supporting columns throughout the building. Otherwise, you could simply start a one-floor collapse somewhere at the top of the building and bring the whole thing down - which you can not. The only additional kinetic energy was that of the falling distance of one floor and the weight of the number of floors above the collapse. Although, I seem to recall the collapse began at the top of the buildings. It certainly did for building 7. I am also totally convinced that horizontal floors falling vertically, even if their connection to the surrounding steel lattice failed (at all points simultaneously), would not be able to bring vertically aligned steel girders down. You may conceivably end up with 110 pancaked floors at the bottom of an intact steel frame. As the connections between the floor and core beams would fail long before the core beams failed along their length you would end up with all the core beams poking up thru the pancaked floors. The official pancake theory requires us to believe the opposite - that the floor connections to the core structure were sufficient to drag the core columns down vertically thru their strongest part whilst the core columns themselves were unable to support the additional kinetic energy of the collapse.

That alone raises considerable doubt in my mind.

If you then consider other 'information' - pulverised concrete, vertical explosions during the 'collapse', total lack of an inferno to support the 'collapse by fire' theory, witness testimony by qualified fire-fighters of additional explosions in the towers(and not just distant noises), the considered opinions of firefighters of the relatively trivial nature of the fires and the relative ease of controlling those fires, the lack of precedence for any other steel-framed building collapsing due to fire (before or since), the very short duration of the fires (in fire/construction terms), the basically uniform collapse of the building (would have required equal and uniform damage and structural degradation throughout the towers), no resistence at all during the fall of any of the towers, video evidence which appears to show very isolated local hot spots(not going to comment on the metal pouring out, but if it's aluminium, it should be happening everywhere), explosive squibs ahead of the collapse, the chances of a PNAC justifying event occurring within 18 months of it being raised.

You can individually debunk every minor aspect of the CT theory or you can consider that one theory explains it all - controlled demolition.

Add to that the restrictions of civil liberties and freedom of speech which have occurred across the Western world as a result of 911(even in countries unconnected to 911). The Patriot Act and anti-terrorism legislation has been used to arrest political dissenters, invade privacy, steal private property and data, warrantless searches, restrict the movement of citizens, ignore the law, remove demonstrators at the RNC and Labour Party Conference as well as peace protestors and support calls for a national ID card in countries whose populations totally oppose it.

You are correct - none of the above represents absolute proof, but after a while you have to ask yourself do you believe the government position which has gained so much from this one event. This is the same government which was ultimately resposible for the failures(deliberate or otherwise) on 911 and the subsequent poor investigation. Which removed evidence before and during the investigation. Which blocked, obstructed and finally under-funded the 911 commision. Which actively fought to avoid testifiying. Which has subsequently shown itself to be as corrupt and deceitful as any con-artist (I do not exclude the UK government from this - they are arguably worse).

The criminal investigation appears to have stalled despite not having been resolved or properly investigated. You would think this would be the biggest investigation in US history, but no-one seems particularly concerned about identifying those involved(except those IDed within hours) and more importantly the support networks which could still represent a risk to the US.

We are aware of the lies governments tell us to justify actions their populations would oppose. History is littered with them, but we refuse to see any of these within any historical context. Incubator babies, Gulf of Tonkin, Reichstag Fire, Pearl Harbour, The Downing Street memos, USS Liberty, "We are not spying on US citizens", "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", Hezbollah has a death-star supplied by Iran...all isolated lies or misunderstandings or conspiracy theories or just what all governments have always done because we are just stupid voters who don't understand the real issues or more likely lies to justify things that governments do that their people would oppose. What if government lies are simply government policy and only now are we beginning to see that. Maybe that's why we are losing democracy - because fewer people are believing the lies.

Now where did I put that foil hat?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Stephen,

I agree that without expert testimony our case is difficult to prove, but there is considerable reluctance on the part of experts to consider an alternative explaination, let alone associate themselves with an alternative conclusion.

Common sense tells me that the pancake theory is rubbish:

For the towers to collapse in the manner they did (pancake theory) - all the steel would have had to have been compromised in the way you suggest (and probably to the same degree). Which it was not. It was designed to hold the weight of the building above and like all contruction projects was over-engineered. The massive kinetic energy you refer to would only have been applicable at the final moment of collapse and only at the base of the towers. For all floors whose steel was unaffected by fire/impact (most of them) - they would have offered considerable resistance to the falling matter above. This is the reason why controlled demolitions destroy the supporting columns throughout the building. Otherwise, you could simply start a one-floor collapse somewhere at the top of the building and bring the whole thing down - which you can not. The only additional kinetic energy was that of the falling distance of one floor and the weight of the number of floors above the collapse. Although, I seem to recall the collapse began at the top of the buildings. It certainly did for building 7. I am also totally convinced that horizontal floors falling vertically, even if their connection to the surrounding steel lattice failed (at all points simultaneously), would not be able to bring vertically aligned steel girders down. You may conceivably end up with 110 pancaked floors at the bottom of an intact steel frame. As the connections between the floor and core beams would fail long before the core beams failed along their length you would end up with all the core beams poking up thru the pancaked floors. The official pancake theory requires us to believe the opposite - that the floor connections to the core structure were sufficient to drag the core columns down vertically thru their strongest part whilst the core columns themselves were unable to support the additional kinetic energy of the collapse.

That alone raises considerable doubt in my mind.

If you then consider other 'information' - pulverised concrete, vertical explosions during the 'collapse', total lack of an inferno to support the 'collapse by fire' theory, witness testimony by qualified fire-fighters of additional explosions in the towers(and not just distant noises), the considered opinions of firefighters of the relatively trivial nature of the fires and the relative ease of controlling those fires, the lack of precedence for any other steel-framed building collapsing due to fire (before or since), the very short duration of the fires (in fire/construction terms), the basically uniform collapse of the building (would have required equal and uniform damage and structural degradation throughout the towers), no resistence at all during the fall of any of the towers, video evidence which appears to show very isolated local hot spots(not going to comment on the metal pouring out, but if it's aluminium, it should be happening everywhere), explosive squibs ahead of the collapse, the chances of a PNAC justifying event occurring within 18 months of it being raised.

You can individually debunk every minor aspect of the CT theory or you can consider that one theory explains it all - controlled demolition.

Add to that the restrictions of civil liberties and freedom of speech which have occurred across the Western world as a result of 911(even in countries unconnected to 911). The Patriot Act and anti-terrorism legislation has been used to arrest political dissenters, invade privacy, steal private property and data, warrantless searches, restrict the movement of citizens, ignore the law, remove demonstrators at the RNC and Labour Party Conference as well as peace protestors and support calls for a national ID card in countries whose populations totally oppose it.

You are correct - none of the above represents absolute proof, but after a while you have to ask yourself do you believe the government position which has gained so much from this one event. This is the same government which was ultimately resposible for the failures(deliberate or otherwise) on 911 and the subsequent poor investigation. Which removed evidence before and during the investigation. Which blocked, obstructed and finally under-funded the 911 commision. Which actively fought to avoid testifiying. Which has subsequently shown itself to be as corrupt and deceitful as any con-artist (I do not exclude the UK government from this - they are arguably worse).

The criminal investigation appears to have stalled despite not having been resolved or properly investigated. You would think this would be the biggest investigation in US history, but no-one seems particularly concerned about identifying those involved(except those IDed within hours) and more importantly the support networks which could still represent a risk to the US.

We are aware of the lies governments tell us to justify actions their populations would oppose. History is littered with them, but we refuse to see any of these within any historical context. Incubator babies, Gulf of Tonkin, Reichstag Fire, Pearl Harbour, The Downing Street memos, USS Liberty, "We are not spying on US citizens", "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", Hezbollah has a death-star supplied by Iran...all isolated lies or misunderstandings or conspiracy theories or just what all governments have always done because we are just stupid voters who don't understand the real issues or more likely lies to justify things that governments do that their people would oppose. What if government lies are simply government policy and only now are we beginning to see that. Maybe that's why we are losing democracy - because fewer people are believing the lies.

Now where did I put that foil hat?

Steve, a lot of what you say, I agree with. We are losing freedoms that took our forefathers hundreds of years to win, hand over fist. I see the next ten years as absolutely pivitol in human history. And, yes Governments lie like we breath, easily, and frequently. So why do I by-and-large, think the official record is correct? Because every expert in all the relevant catogories say it is, simple as that. The real conspiracy here were the faked Memo's justifying the aggression against Iraq, and a stultifing lack of preperation, on the behalve of the Bush administration, that quite frankly borders on the criminally negligent. I believe that C/Ts concerning the attack itself detract from persuing these real crimes, for which Bush, and Blair, and their henchmen should be held responsible...Regards, Steve.

[Steve Rymer]

Stephen,

Waiting around for a catalyzing event to start all this off is too imprecise and too time-consuming. Combined with our governments willingness to carry out false flag operations against it's own people (Operation Northwoods), it appears highly unlikely, IMHO, that 911 occurred the way it is portrayed.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Northwoods was of course rejected by McNamara, and its architects scatered to the four winds. (I personally believe that this act sealed JFKs fate, but thats another story)Now, if you wanted to debate just how much certain agencies knew before the act, thats another story. But not being a structural engineer, architect, pilot, aeronuatical designer etc I have to believe their evidence. If you have any relevant expert testimony please post it. I am always willing to change my mind.

[Len Colby]

Stephen,

I agree that without expert testimony our case is difficult to prove, but there is considerable reluctance on the part of experts to consider an alternative explaination, let alone associate themselves with an alternative conclusion.

Common sense tells me that the pancake theory is rubbish:

For the towers to collapse in the manner they did (pancake theory) - all the steel would have had to have been compromised in the way you suggest (and probably to the same degree). Which it was not. It was designed to hold the weight of the building above and like all contruction projects was over-engineered. The massive kinetic energy you refer to would only have been applicable at the final moment of collapse and only at the base of the towers. For all floors whose steel was unaffected by fire/impact (most of them) - they would have offered considerable resistance to the falling matter above. This is the reason why controlled demolitions destroy the supporting columns throughout the building. Otherwise, you could simply start a one-floor collapse somewhere at the top of the building and bring the whole thing down - which you can not. The only additional kinetic energy was that of the falling distance of one floor and the weight of the number of floors above the collapse. Although, I seem to recall the collapse began at the top of the buildings. It certainly did for building 7. I am also totally convinced that horizontal floors falling vertically, even if their connection to the surrounding steel lattice failed (at all points simultaneously), would not be able to bring vertically aligned steel girders down. You may conceivably end up with 110 pancaked floors at the bottom of an intact steel frame. As the connections between the floor and core beams would fail long before the core beams failed along their length you would end up with all the core beams poking up thru the pancaked floors. The official pancake theory requires us to believe the opposite - that the floor connections to the core structure were sufficient to drag the core columns down vertically thru their strongest part whilst the core columns themselves were unable to support the additional kinetic energy of the collapse.

That alone raises considerable doubt in my mind.

If you then consider other 'information' - pulverised concrete, vertical explosions during the 'collapse', total lack of an inferno to support the 'collapse by fire' theory, witness testimony by qualified fire-fighters of additional explosions in the towers(and not just distant noises), the considered opinions of firefighters of the relatively trivial nature of the fires and the relative ease of controlling those fires, the lack of precedence for any other steel-framed building collapsing due to fire (before or since), the very short duration of the fires (in fire/construction terms), the basically uniform collapse of the building (would have required equal and uniform damage and structural degradation throughout the towers), no resistence at all during the fall of any of the towers, video evidence which appears to show very isolated local hot spots(not going to comment on the metal pouring out, but if it's aluminium, it should be happening everywhere), explosive squibs ahead of the collapse, the chances of a PNAC justifying event occurring within 18 months of it being raised.

You can individually debunk every minor aspect of the CT theory or you can consider that one theory explains it all - controlled demolition.

[…]

Now where did I put that foil hat?

The problem with all the people like you saying that the towers should have collapsed this way or that way if they had collapsed due to the impact damage and resulting fires is, no offence, they are people like you (and me) i.e. they have no relevant expertise. The objections you raise have already been addressed

As mentioned on the other thread I'll be traveling soon so I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to the forum so I will only address a few points and don't have links to back all my assertions (you of course supplied none)

"witness testimony by qualified fire-fighters of additional explosions in the towers(and not just distant noises)"

Explosion like noises don't always mean explosions and explosions don't always mean explosives (in the sense of planted demolition charges)

The quotes normally found on CT sites are normally taken out of context and sometimes selectively edited to a degree that suggests dishonesty. http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/quotes.htm

"the considered opinions of firefighters of the relatively trivial nature of the fires and the relative ease of controlling those fires"

I have only seen one firefighter (Orio Palmer) quoted saying something like that. He was in a stairwell on the 78th floor of the South Tower a floor which NIST said had only minor fires. His quote in no way indicates that he was talking about any place other than his immediate enclosed location. http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html

"the lack of precedence for any other steel-framed building collapsing due to fire (before or since)"

Can you tell me what other central core steel framed buildings were hit by jetliners traveling at 400+ MPH that severely compromising their structural integrity and fire-proofing?

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/firsttime.htm

"the basically uniform collapse of the building (would have required equal and uniform damage and structural degradation throughout the towers),"

Find me ONE structural engineer from anywhere on the planet who takes this position, I don't know of a single and apparently the "inside jobbers" don't either because I've never seen one quoted. Compare this with the dozens of highly qualified engineers who contributed to numerous reports and papers about the collapses.

"The massive kinetic energy you refer to would only have been applicable at the final moment of collapse and only at the base of the towers "

As above find me a structural engineer who agrees. The South Tower had 30 floors of load to support above the impact zone. It is now believed that the collapse initiated in the floor systems which were only designed to support their own weight and that of the content of the floors. The vertical supports were designed to support the static load, as opposed to dynamic load, of the floors above.

"no resistence at all during the fall of any of the towers"

Free fall times would have been around 9 seconds, the buildings collapsed in 14 – 16 seconds even many CT sites recognize this http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...s/freefall.html , http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html , http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm. The only paper about the collapses to pass peer review for a scientific journal explains how the towers could have collapsed as quickly as they did. http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

"I seem to recall the collapse began at the top of the buildings. It certainly did for building 7"

No watch the video 7 collapsed from the bottom, 1 & 2 did however collapse from the top. A top down collapse is inconsistent with controlled demo, find me 1 video clip of a top down contolled demo.

If you are so unaware of how the towers collapsed you are really in no position to question the conclusions of experts who unlike you are qualified to analyze such events with authority.

"The massive kinetic energy you refer to would only have been applicable at the final moment of collapse and only at the base of the towers. For all floors whose steel was unaffected by fire/impact (most of them) - they would have offered considerable resistance to the falling matter above. This is the reason why controlled demolitions destroy the supporting columns throughout the building."

No, in most (all?) controlled demos they only place explosives on select floors and let gravity do the rest as happened in the collapse theory. There are several interviews with members of the Loizeaux family, owners of Controlled Demolition Inc. to this effect. I'll try and find some links. See also the article in How Stuff Works http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

"(not going to comment on the metal pouring out, but if it's aluminium, it should be happening everywhere),"

By the same token if it was steel melted with thermite or thermate it should have been happening everywhere too. Also in that case the concrete in the floors probably would have spalled (i.e. exploded due to exposure to intense heat*). NIST speculated the metal was from one the airplane aluminum alloy wheels, did you read the report?

*[see this paper for example http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build00/PDF/b00012.pdf ]

"the chances of a PNAC justifying event occurring within 18 months of it being raised."

Why would they say something like that publicly if they were planning such an attack? Also the "Pearl Harbor" did not "justify" such an event it was simply recognition of the fact their goal, increased defense spending, would be difficult to achieve barring such an event.

"You can individually debunk every minor aspect of the CT theory or you can consider that one theory explains it all - controlled demolition."

People can come up with a million false anomalies but it proves nothing, there are no serious inconsistencies with the collapse theory but rather numerous holes in the controlled demo theory, such as the unanswered questions:

-'How did they plant the explosives without being detected?" The core columns were encased in drywall the perimeter columns in aluminum cladding. And

-"How did they get the planes to crash into the towers?" note the lack of any reply with authoritive citations in the thread about remote control.

"Now where did I put that foil hat?"

On the top of your head J, I can see it via my 'distant viewing' abilities!

Len

Edited July 25, 2006 by Len Colby

[Guest John Gillespie]

Stephen,

I agree that without expert testimony our case is difficult to prove, but there is considerable reluctance on the part of experts to consider an alternative explaination, let alone associate themselves with an alternative conclusion.

Common sense tells me that the pancake theory is rubbish:

For the towers to collapse in the manner they did (pancake theory) - all the steel would have had to have been compromised in the way you suggest (and probably to the same degree). Which it was not. It was designed to hold the weight of the building above and like all contruction projects was over-engineered. The massive kinetic energy you refer to would only have been applicable at the final moment of collapse and only at the base of the towers. For all floors whose steel was unaffected by fire/impact (most of them) - they would have offered considerable resistance to the falling matter above. This is the reason why controlled demolitions destroy the supporting columns throughout the building. Otherwise, you could simply start a one-floor collapse somewhere at the top of the building and bring the whole thing down - which you can not. The only additional kinetic energy was that of the falling distance of one floor and the weight of the number of floors above the collapse. Although, I seem to recall the collapse began at the top of the buildings. It certainly did for building 7. I am also totally convinced that horizontal floors falling vertically, even if their connection to the surrounding steel lattice failed (at all points simultaneously), would not be able to bring vertically aligned steel girders down. You may conceivably end up with 110 pancaked floors at the bottom of an intact steel frame. As the connections between the floor and core beams would fail long before the core beams failed along their length you would end up with all the core beams poking up thru the pancaked floors. The official pancake theory requires us to believe the opposite - that the floor connections to the core structure were sufficient to drag the core columns down vertically thru their strongest part whilst the core columns themselves were unable to support the additional kinetic energy of the collapse.

That alone raises considerable doubt in my mind.

If you then consider other 'information' - pulverised concrete, vertical explosions during the 'collapse', total lack of an inferno to support the 'collapse by fire' theory, witness testimony by qualified fire-fighters of additional explosions in the towers(and not just distant noises), the considered opinions of firefighters of the relatively trivial nature of the fires and the relative ease of controlling those fires, the lack of precedence for any other steel-framed building collapsing due to fire (before or since), the very short duration of the fires (in fire/construction terms), the basically uniform collapse of the building (would have required equal and uniform damage and structural degradation throughout the towers), no resistence at all during the fall of any of the towers, video evidence which appears to show very isolated local hot spots(not going to comment on the metal pouring out, but if it's aluminium, it should be happening everywhere), explosive squibs ahead of the collapse, the chances of a PNAC justifying event occurring within 18 months of it being raised.

You can individually debunk every minor aspect of the CT theory or you can consider that one theory explains it all - controlled demolition.

Add to that the restrictions of civil liberties and freedom of speech which have occurred across the Western world as a result of 911(even in countries unconnected to 911). The Patriot Act and anti-terrorism legislation has been used to arrest political dissenters, invade privacy, steal private property and data, warrantless searches, restrict the movement of citizens, ignore the law, remove demonstrators at the RNC and Labour Party Conference as well as peace protestors and support calls for a national ID card in countries whose populations totally oppose it.

You are correct - none of the above represents absolute proof, but after a while you have to ask yourself do you believe the government position which has gained so much from this one event. This is the same government which was ultimately resposible for the failures(deliberate or otherwise) on 911 and the subsequent poor investigation. Which removed evidence before and during the investigation. Which blocked, obstructed and finally under-funded the 911 commision. Which actively fought to avoid testifiying. Which has subsequently shown itself to be as corrupt and deceitful as any con-artist (I do not exclude the UK government from this - they are arguably worse).

The criminal investigation appears to have stalled despite not having been resolved or properly investigated. You would think this would be the biggest investigation in US history, but no-one seems particularly concerned about identifying those involved(except those IDed within hours) and more importantly the support networks which could still represent a risk to the US.

We are aware of the lies governments tell us to justify actions their populations would oppose. History is littered with them, but we refuse to see any of these within any historical context. Incubator babies, Gulf of Tonkin, Reichstag Fire, Pearl Harbour, The Downing Street memos, USS Liberty, "We are not spying on US citizens", "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", Hezbollah has a death-star supplied by Iran...all isolated lies or misunderstandings or conspiracy theories or just what all governments have always done because we are just stupid voters who don't understand the real issues or more likely lies to justify things that governments do that their people would oppose. What if government lies are simply government policy and only now are we beginning to see that. Maybe that's why we are losing democracy - because fewer people are believing the lies.

Now where did I put that foil hat?

[Steve Rymer]

Len,

Thanks for the quick response...You must type fast!

Yeah, as I said. It is possible to debunk/provide alternative explainations for every aspect of the CT theory, but the fact that you have to when on the surface the obvious information paints a different picture is more than enough to raise (my) doubts.

Yes, I agree there are plausable explainations for everything and you are correct, most people have neither the expertise nor the time to devote to the subject to change that.

When you take all the evidence as a whole - considerable doubts remain. I mentioned just a few points. You could add Bush's reaction at the school, plus claiming to have seen the 1st WTC hit, warnings to high-profile people not to fly, prior warnings to the US(all denied), Mineta's testimony to the commision, Silverstein's taped interview to 'pull' building 7, the WTC lease and insurance just months before 911, low passenger occupancy on the planes, Bush family involvement in the security company, seismic data, audio recordings of an explosion 9 seconds after impact, FBI agents being obstructed, FBI warnings being ignored, 'put' options, the classified 28 page section of the commission report, retaliation against Iraq for what was basically a Saudi operation (most of the hijackers), visa anomalies, magic passports and incriminating evidence, "No-one could have envisaged terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into the WTC" - except the military planners who carried out an exercise for just that...

The whole things smells fishy and it shouldn't. The evidence to support the government version of events should be overwhelming and it is not. It relies (at best) on vaporizing planes, pancaking towers, air defence failures, myopic risk assessments, incompetence on a massive scale and 101 other things which made it all go very well for the hijackers.

The government should have been beyond suspicion, but they acted like they had something to hide. They skulked and obstructed and obviscated and blocked and censored and eventually ignored the concerns of the US people. Most Americans and, indeed, Europeans remain unconvinced.

Thanks for the head's up on your remote viewing abilities...I will add an extra layer of foil to my hat.

[Len Colby]

Thanks for the head's up on your remote viewing abilities...I will add an extra layer of foil to my hat.

Don't be so silly Steve, the usefulness of tinfoil hats is a myth made up by the NWO/PTB/MIBH. They actually increase your susceptibility to mind reading/control, subconscious suggestion and Vulcan mind melds due to a magnetic polarizer they add to the foil.

I bought this baby from a neighbor and it DOES work.

I highly recommend that you and all members of this forum get similar protection. I NEVER take it off, even when I shower, brushing my teeth is a real pain in the butt. I hope they let me fly to US this Friday!

Len