9/11: The September 11th Attacks

[Jerry_B]

Well if you've heard the evidence for the collapse of the 3 towers being a unique and almost inexplicable event and that doesn't raise any red flag for you then I think we have to agree your mind is made up.

I really don't want to get into some Troofer debate. And if anyone could show another example anywhere of steel core high rise buildings acting like the three WTCs did that day then I'd be happy to accept the official version.

You really should look back over the 9/11 threads here at the FTMB, as this has been discussed at length over the years. Also, it's not exactly fair to state that someone's mind is made up simply because they do not hold the same outlook as you. Again, this is a mistake made by others as the various 9/11 threads unfolded over time.

 

[Quake42]

You really should look back over the 9/11 threads here at the FTMB, as this has been discussed at length over the years. Also, it's not exactly fair to state that someone's mind is made up simply because they do not hold the same outlook as you.

Quite - the claims and counter claims about the collapse of the WTC have been aired on numerous occasions on the FTMB. Personally I'm unconvinced by the Truthers' claims on this and I'm not sure why it's particularly surprising that a skyscraper falls down after it's hit by two large commercial jet aircraft.

If there's new evidence that 9/11 was not what it seemed, I'm open-minded enough to consider it: but queries about this new evidence have so far been met with nothing more substantive than a suggestion that I browse unspecified Truther websites.

So I'll ask again: what new evidence do the families (or others) actually have?

 

[Sergeant_Pluck]

I'm not a "truther" - rather a curious bystander, and one troubled by the strange physics going on that day, but I've read enough to know there were literally dozens of witnesses on the day who claimed there had been explosions in the TT on multiple floors well below the site of impact. Firefighters, journalists, building maintenance workers, all reported hearing and seeing these explosions, often swiftly repeating (like charges detonating) just before the towers came down.

I particularly like this question. Any idea what a building/s of that size would look like if wired for demolition? Any idea how much work would have to go into it? - we're talking a team of a hundred men about 3 months to wire up a building - not to mention the building has to be stripped and prepared for a demolition. You don't just pitch up with a bagful of TNT and set it off in the basement. A controlled demolition is a highly specialised operation and it is damn near inconceivable that a building, any building, could be prepared and no-one notice it.

 

[AngelAlice]

Well if you've heard the evidence for the collapse of the 3 towers being a unique and almost inexplicable event and that doesn't raise any red flag for you then I think we have to agree your mind is made up.

I really don't want to get into some Troofer debate. And if anyone could show another example anywhere of steel core high rise buildings acting like the three WTCs did that day then I'd be happy to accept the official version.

You really should look back over the 9/11 threads here at the FTMB, as this has been discussed at length over the years. Also, it's not exactly fair to state that someone's mind is made up simply because they do not hold the same outlook as you. Again, this is a mistake made by others as the various 9/11 threads unfolded over time.

I took part in many of those threads, and I'm familiar with the proposed theories for why the WTCs may have behaved in the ways they did. But i didn't ask for theories I asked for precedents - examples of the same behaviour evinced in other structures at other times.

See, if a building collapses while burning in a way no burning building has ever collapsed before, and if that collapse appears to show all the same characteristics of a controlled demolition and none of the characteristics of any known natural phenomenon, then the default assumption has to be - controlled demolition. Because there are precedents for controlled demolition producing that result and no precedents for anything else producing that result.

That's pretty basic science isn't it.

We can't just say "this looks exactly like a controlled demolition - oh but here's a theory about why if X. Y and Z happened it also might look like a controlled demolition; therefore it was X,Y and Z."

No. We need first to prove in some real world way that X, Y and Z really can simulate the effects we observed. And until then the proven explanation - controlled demolition - remains the most logically probable. And that doesn't change because acknowledging that puts us closer than we'd like to some wacky theorists.

I'm currently not sure X,Y and Z have been established beyond mere theory. I'm not even sure they make much scientific sense when it comes to the observed free fall of a collapsing building.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I took part in many of those threads, and I'm familiar with the proposed theories for why the WTCs may have behaved in the ways they did. But i didn't ask for theories I asked for precedents - examples of the same behaviour evinced in other structures at other times.

What are the precedents for an event of this type that you think are comparable? As far as I can make out there aren't any.

See, if a building collapses while burning in a way no burning building has ever collapsed before, and if that collapse appears to show all the same characteristics of a controlled demolition and none of the characteristics of any known natural phenomenon, then the default assumption has to be - controlled demolition. Because there are precedents for controlled demolition producing that result and no precedents for anything else producing that result.

That's pretty basic science isn't it.

Not really. It's a series of assumptions based on what we think we know about controlled demolitions and building collapse in general. It also requires a selective examination of the evidence.

We can't just say "this looks exactly like a controlled demolition - oh but here's a theory about why if X. Y and Z happened it also might look like a controlled demolition; therefore it was X,Y and Z."

No. We need first to prove in some real world way that X, Y and Z really can simulate the effects we observed. And until then the proven explanation - controlled demolition - remains the most logically probable. And that doesn't change because acknowledging that puts us closer than we'd like to some wacky theorists.

I'm currently not sure X,Y and Z have been established beyond mere theory. I'm not even sure they make much scientific sense when it comes to the observed free fall of a collapsing building.

We should probably just ignore what things "look like" and stick to objective facts.

 

[Heckler]

And the point that was made repeatedly was that no building of this size, of this vintage, with this design, has ever been hit by a plane full of fuel deliberately, so any theories as to why it fell as it did are just that, theories, based upon very little real world testable precidents. The offical report even makes mention of this.

The fact that both towers fell down in an identical manner at least suggests that they both collapsed for the same reason and presumably if you repeated the experiment (with a nod to all the conditions above) the result would likely as not, based on the limited experimental base, be the same.

 

[kamalktk]

Well if you've heard the evidence for the collapse of the 3 towers being a unique and almost inexplicable event and that doesn't raise any red flag for you then I think we have to agree your mind is made up.

I really don't want to get into some Troofer debate. And if anyone could show another example anywhere of steel core high rise buildings acting like the three WTCs did that day then I'd be happy to accept the official version.

You really should look back over the 9/11 threads here at the FTMB, as this has been discussed at length over the years. Also, it's not exactly fair to state that someone's mind is made up simply because they do not hold the same outlook as you. Again, this is a mistake made by others as the various 9/11 threads unfolded over time.

I took part in many of those threads, and I'm familiar with the proposed theories for why the WTCs may have behaved in the ways they did. But i didn't ask for theories I asked for precedents - examples of the same behaviour evinced in other structures at other times.

See, if a building collapses while burning in a way no burning building has ever collapsed before, and if that collapse appears to show all the same characteristics of a controlled demolition and none of the characteristics of any known natural phenomenon, then the default assumption has to be - controlled demolition. Because there are precedents for controlled demolition producing that result and no precedents for anything else producing that result.

No other giant skyscrapers have had planes the size of the 9/11 planes flown into them, or giant chunks of them torn out by giant chunks falling from another skyscraper, so there are no precedents. The "no precedent" idea is a bad one, simply because there are actually no precedents for this. If you want to pursue a 9/11 idea, pursue a different line of thinking.

 

[AngelAlice]

I took part in many of those threads, and I'm familiar with the proposed theories for why the WTCs may have behaved in the ways they did. But i didn't ask for theories I asked for precedents - examples of the same behaviour evinced in other structures at other times.

What are the precedents for an event of this type that you think are comparable? As far as I can make out there aren't any.

There are numerous precedents for high-rise steel core buildings catching fire. None of them collapsed though.

See, if a building collapses while burning in a way no burning building has ever collapsed before, and if that collapse appears to show all the same characteristics of a controlled demolition and none of the characteristics of any known natural phenomenon, then the default assumption has to be - controlled demolition. Because there are precedents for controlled demolition producing that result and no precedents for anything else producing that result.

That's pretty basic science isn't it.

Not really. It's a series of assumptions based on what we think we know about controlled demolitions and building collapse in general. It also requires a selective examination of the evidence.

To substantiate that allegation you need to find the examples I'm not selecting. Do you know of other high rise buildings collapsing due to fire? Or other examples of buildings collapsing symmetrically at near free-fall without having charges laid to simultaneously weaken all their supports? Have you asked a demolition expert to tell you if the WTC collapse is or is not identical to a controlled demolition?. if so, just show the evidence here and I'll accept your point gladly.

We can't just say "this looks exactly like a controlled demolition - oh but here's a theory about why if X. Y and Z happened it also might look like a controlled demolition; therefore it was X,Y and Z."

No. We need first to prove in some real world way that X, Y and Z really can simulate the effects we observed. And until then the proven explanation - controlled demolition - remains the most logically probable. And that doesn't change because acknowledging that puts us closer than we'd like to some wacky theorists.

I'm currently not sure X,Y and Z have been established beyond mere theory. I'm not even sure they make much scientific sense when it comes to the observed free fall of a collapsing building.

We should probably just ignore what things "look like" and stick to objective facts.

How is what a thing looks like not capable of objective analysis? if that were true we'd have no science!

If you put the video of all three WTC collapses next to video of a controlled demolition and compare them, what do you see? They appear identical. When you put the video of the three WTCs next to a video of a comparable fire, what do you see? They look completely different.When you measure the speed of collapse of WTC7 you can see it's dropping at near free-fall. This means every floor must have simultaneously given way and be offering no resistance to the floor above. By what known mechanism could this happen as a result of a fire?

NIST couldn't explain it, nor could FEMA. Currently there is no official answer to that question at all. Is that really good enough on an issue like this? I don't think so, and this is why numerous architects and engineers and physicists are not comfortable with accepting the status quo in this regard.

 

[Sergeant_Pluck]

If you put the video of all three WTC collapses next to video of a controlled demolition and compare them, what do you see? They appear identical.

If you put a turd next to a chocolate brownie, they look identical too, but it doesn't mean you're going to take a big bite out of it, does it? Hell, if my auntie wore trousers, she'd be my uncle.

My uncle is a demolition expert - he says yep, it looks like I'd expect a building to fall if it was demolished, especially a skyscraper that has buidings around it. Clearly, if you ever want to demolish it, you design it so it 'concertiners' downwards and causes minimal disruption to the surrounding area.

What it looks like is irerelevant. There may have been buildings on fire before - all of those buildings have different designs, structres etc. None of them have ever suffered a catastrophic hit from an airliner at three-quarters height. In all likelihood, enough of the structre was damaged so that the weight of the top quarter concertinered the tower, and it collapsed the way it was supposed to had it been subject to earthquake/demolition/ Godzilla attack.

 

[AngelAlice]

Well if you've heard the evidence for the collapse of the 3 towers being a unique and almost inexplicable event and that doesn't raise any red flag for you then I think we have to agree your mind is made up.

I really don't want to get into some Troofer debate. And if anyone could show another example anywhere of steel core high rise buildings acting like the three WTCs did that day then I'd be happy to accept the official version.

You really should look back over the 9/11 threads here at the FTMB, as this has been discussed at length over the years. Also, it's not exactly fair to state that someone's mind is made up simply because they do not hold the same outlook as you. Again, this is a mistake made by others as the various 9/11 threads unfolded over time.

I took part in many of those threads, and I'm familiar with the proposed theories for why the WTCs may have behaved in the ways they did. But i didn't ask for theories I asked for precedents - examples of the same behaviour evinced in other structures at other times.

See, if a building collapses while burning in a way no burning building has ever collapsed before, and if that collapse appears to show all the same characteristics of a controlled demolition and none of the characteristics of any known natural phenomenon, then the default assumption has to be - controlled demolition. Because there are precedents for controlled demolition producing that result and no precedents for anything else producing that result.

No other giant skyscrapers have had planes the size of the 9/11 planes flown into them, or giant chunks of them torn out by giant chunks falling from another skyscraper, so there are no precedents. The "no precedent" idea is a bad one, simply because there are actually no precedents for this. If you want to pursue a 9/11 idea, pursue a different line of thinking.

The point is not the extent of the damage but that damage does not make building collapse in that fashion. Buildings have been subjected to earth quakes, hurricanes, bombings, fires that almost destroyed them - but none have ever performed free-fall collapse into their own footprint - apart from the three towers on 9/11.

That's because damage from impacts and earthquakes and fires makes buildings collapse asymmetrically in line with the areas of trauma. They lean and tilt and bits remain standing. Symmetrical collapse requires perfectly symmetrical destruction. It requires each one of the support columns to give way at the same second. Such an event occurring once that day would be incredible. It occurring three times to buildings that didn't even sustain the same impacts is almost impossible to reconcile with physics.

 

[Jonfairway]

i have an idea... we build a replica tower exactly the same and fly the plane into and see it it happens the same again !!!

we can even have a passport floating test to see if mohammeds passport did fly to safety


seriously tho

i agree with Jerry, these towers are not the same as others and comparisons are difficult to appraise...

and we have no way of ever knowing what caused such a free fall looking collapse now, my best bet is inferrior design and stuff !!!

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

There are numerous precedents for high-rise steel core buildings catching fire. None of them collapsed though.

Please name one that is comparable to the WTC.

To substantiate that allegation you need to find the examples I'm not selecting. Do you know of other high rise buildings collapsing due to fire? Or other examples of buildings collapsing symmetrically at near free-fall without having charges laid to simultaneously weaken all their supports? Have you asked a demolition expert to tell you if the WTC collapse is or is not identical to a controlled demolition?. if so, just show the evidence here and I'll accept your point gladly.

Have you?

Regardless, the collapses do not "show all the same characteristics of a controlled demolition". You would have to substantiate the allegation that they do.

How is what a thing looks like not capable of objective analysis? if that were true we'd have no science!

Well, applying that logic we'd have to declare light capable of arriving anywhere in the universe instantly. We don't - we use other more comprehensive and less subjective means of calculating its speed.

If you put the video of all three WTC collapses next to video of a controlled demolition and compare them, what do you see? They appear identical. When you put the video of the three WTCs next to a video of a comparable fire, what do you see? They look completely different.When you measure the speed of collapse of WTC7 you can see it's dropping at near free-fall. This means every floor must have simultaneously given way and be offering no resistance to the floor above. By what known mechanism could this happen as a result of a fire?

NIST couldn't explain it, nor could FEMA. Currently there is no official answer to that question at all. Is that really good enough on an issue like this? I don't think so, and this is why numerous architects and engineers and physicists are not comfortable with accepting the status quo in this regard.

Essentially you're just asking for answers that have already been provided on this thread and elsewhere on this forum (not to mention across the internet) to be rehashed. Pretty much every issue you've raised has been discussed before and either explained or demonstrated to be based on fallacy.

It has yet to be demonstrated that WTC 7 collapsed at freefall speed. If you're familiar with this discussion you will also be aware of the staggered collapse of that particular building and why the appearance in this case is deceptive.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Such an event occurring once that day would be incredible. It occurring three times to buildings that didn't even sustain the same impacts is almost impossible to reconcile with physics.

All the buildings sustained impacts. Whatever happened the chances of it occuring three times are not multiplied accordingly since they were all part of the same unique event. That's like saying that the chances of an earthquake and a tsunami occuring in any given region on the same day should be the aggregation of the odds of either happening independently. They're not.

 

[AngelAlice]

There are numerous precedents for high-rise steel core buildings catching fire. None of them collapsed though.

Please name one that is comparable to the WTC.

.
No, no. You can't say "oh well there must have been some variable in the construction that made it happen that way." You have to show what that variable was. Remember - the official report failed to offer any explanation for the actual collapse of the TTs and didn't discuss WTC7 at all. Almost incredibly there's no government answer for how and why these three buildings did the apparently impossible and imploded into dust that day. Doesn't that bother you? It really bothers me.

To substantiate that allegation you need to find the examples I'm not selecting. Do you know of other high rise buildings collapsing due to fire? Or other examples of buildings collapsing symmetrically at near free-fall without having charges laid to simultaneously weaken all their supports? Have you asked a demolition expert to tell you if the WTC collapse is or is not identical to a controlled demolition?. if so, just show the evidence here and I'll accept your point gladly.

Have you?

Not personally, I have to admit. But there are no shortage of construction experts who have offered their opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trad ... y_theories

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

It's easy to think of this issue as a conspiracy-theory, but I think that's as lazy as thinking that people who doubt global warming are all funded by the Koch Bros. The issue of controlled demolition is a scientific question - not a loony rant about death rays from space or suchlike, and real scientists from all over the world do not accept the "official" collapse theory. They might be in a minority, but we Forteans all know that doesn't equate with being wrong.

Regardless, the collapses do not "show all the same characteristics of a controlled demolition". You would have to substantiate the allegation that they do.

Read the literature on the subject. They initiate in the same way, fall in the same way, and at the same speed. Witnesses described multiple explosions prior to collapse, which is consistent with the destruction of the basement and other supports. The rubble was powdered, suggestive of implosion, but not at all consistent with a collapse due to fire (even supposing such a thing had ever happened which it has not). More importantly though - there is no evidence that a non-demolished building ever fell like that, or could fall like that.

How is what a thing looks like not capable of objective analysis? if that were true we'd have no science!

Well, applying that logic we'd have to declare light capable of arriving anywhere in the universe instantly. We don't - we use other more comprehensive and less subjective means of calculating its speed.

Using your logic we could never use photographic or observational analysis!

If you put the video of all three WTC collapses next to video of a controlled demolition and compare them, what do you see? They appear identical. When you put the video of the three WTCs next to a video of a comparable fire, what do you see? They look completely different.When you measure the speed of collapse of WTC7 you can see it's dropping at near free-fall. This means every floor must have simultaneously given way and be offering no resistance to the floor above. By what known mechanism could this happen as a result of a fire?

NIST couldn't explain it, nor could FEMA. Currently there is no official answer to that question at all. Is that really good enough on an issue like this? I don't think so, and this is why numerous architects and engineers and physicists are not comfortable with accepting the status quo in this regard.

Essentially you're just asking for answers that have already been provided on this thread and elsewhere on this forum (not to mention across the internet) to be rehashed. Pretty much every issue you've raised has been discussed before and either explained or demonstrated to be based on fallacy.

It has yet to be demonstrated that WTC 7 collapsed at freefall speed. If you're familiar with this discussion you will also be aware of the staggered collapse of that particular building and why the appearance in this case is deceptive.

Theoretical explanations have been provided, I agree, but none of them can be easily sustained; they're only answers if you're more concerned with finding reasons to stop thinking about the issue than with finding rational conclusions. For example the ubiquitous "pancake" answer doesn't work at all. The buildings fell too fast and the floors were powdered, vaporised, not pancaked at all.

And how much evidence of free fall do we need? I've seen it demonstrated numerous times. But even if the rebuttal works, the building is still falling much too fast to be encountering resistance from the floors below - so what kind of natural collapse involves almost instantaneous destruction of the entire edifice?

BTW- poster with the uncle who's a demolition man - terrific, if you can ask him to give you examples of other buildings designed in that way that also collapsed as the WTCs did then that's really good counter-evidence. Can he do that if poss?

 

[Bigfoot73]

.

It still does not show who ordered this as an operation nor who planned it.

None of the theories have been specific over and above the usual Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld accusations. There won't be any further detail to any theory until a second investigation gets underway and there is of course no sign of that happening.

 

[kamalktk]

Well if you've heard the evidence for the collapse of the 3 towers being a unique and almost inexplicable event and that doesn't raise any red flag for you then I think we have to agree your mind is made up.

I really don't want to get into some Troofer debate. And if anyone could show another example anywhere of steel core high rise buildings acting like the three WTCs did that day then I'd be happy to accept the official version.

You really should look back over the 9/11 threads here at the FTMB, as this has been discussed at length over the years. Also, it's not exactly fair to state that someone's mind is made up simply because they do not hold the same outlook as you. Again, this is a mistake made by others as the various 9/11 threads unfolded over time.

I took part in many of those threads, and I'm familiar with the proposed theories for why the WTCs may have behaved in the ways they did. But i didn't ask for theories I asked for precedents - examples of the same behaviour evinced in other structures at other times.

See, if a building collapses while burning in a way no burning building has ever collapsed before, and if that collapse appears to show all the same characteristics of a controlled demolition and none of the characteristics of any known natural phenomenon, then the default assumption has to be - controlled demolition. Because there are precedents for controlled demolition producing that result and no precedents for anything else producing that result.

I'm inclined to believe the default is "fully fueled jetplanes flew into the buildings", because... fully fueled jet planes flew into the buildings. And that's something that never happened before.

If you were going to make a demolition of the towers as part of some conspiracy, why would you make it look like a controlled demolition? That would just provide evidence of your conspiracy for it to be exposed and you caught, a conspiracy would want an uncontrolled collapse to hide their efforts. Uncontrolled would also mean greater carnage and thus outrage. Controlled demo is simply illogical from the simply question "why".

 

[Anome]

There are numerous precedents for high-rise steel core buildings catching fire. None of them collapsed though.

Please name one that is comparable to the WTC.

.
No, no. You can't say "oh well there must have been some variable in the construction that made it happen that way." You have to show what that variable was.

But the variable wasn't in the construction. The variable was the introduction of a fully-fueled passenger jet into the building at speed.

As I understand it, from other sources as well as much of the discussion above, modern buildings are built with a view to their eventual removal, whether deliberate or accidental. When building an extremely tall edifice in a built up area, you want it to collapse with a minimal footprint, so, if possible, you design it to collapse in on itself, and straight down, no matter what causes it to collapse.

If we want to play the comparison game, though, can anyone show me a controlled demolition of a building which covered an equivalent, populated area with as much dust and debris as the WTC? And you can't point to any variables in construction to explain any discrepancy.

 

[kamalktk]

Collapse on itself is a good point. If you're engineering a skyscraper, you would want it to collapse on itself in case of any catastrophic failure, so it doesn't fall over on everyone else nearby.

 

[Jerry_B]

The point is not the extent of the damage but that damage does not make building collapse in that fashion. Buildings have been subjected to earth quakes, hurricanes, bombings, fires that almost destroyed them - but none have ever performed free-fall collapse into their own footprint - apart from the three towers on 9/11.

That's because damage from impacts and earthquakes and fires makes buildings collapse asymmetrically in line with the areas of trauma. They lean and tilt and bits remain standing. Symmetrical collapse requires perfectly symmetrical destruction. It requires each one of the support columns to give way at the same second. Such an event occurring once that day would be incredible. It occurring three times to buildings that didn't even sustain the same impacts is almost impossible to reconcile with physics.

As you've said that you've read the 9/11 threads we've already had, it's strange that you raise these points as they've already been discussed in those threads.

 

[Jerry_B]

None of the theories have been specific over and above the usual Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld accusations. There won't be any further detail to any theory until a second investigation gets underway and there is of course no sign of that happening.

If you mean a second official investigation, then - yes - that is unlikely. Aside from that, those who say there there was some sort of conspiracy have yet to actually show who started it, when, and who was involved in carrying it out. So people might suspect that 9/11 was some sort of covert operation (hence the idea of a demolition job) but all that really tells us is that they have pre-conceived biases about it. This is alot different than actual evidence, of course.

 

[Bigfoot73]

This is alot different than actual evidence, of course.

As far as evidence of foul play goes I would maintain there is plenty. I suspect we will never know is at the bottom of this. Absence of evidence of a conspiracy is not evidence of absence of a conspiracy, it just means the plotters are good at it. There could be overlapping conspiracies, with nobody knowing anything and conceivably few of the 9.11 plotters knowing of the financial plot.

There is no doubt that Roosevelt wanted an orchestrated incident to get the US into WW2, simply because of the mass of written evidence and testimony from so many actors, who were not in on some covert plot at all. He succeeded and had made no secret of his intention, it's only in recent years that the events of 1940/41 have come under scrutiny following public information releases and the post 9.11 suspicions.
The 9.11 plotters had done their homework on false flag incidents and orchestration years in advance and the computer revolution must have been a godsend. They must have found great reassurance in realising that most people would simply never believe anything untoward happened at all.

 

[Jerry_B]

As far as evidence of foul play goes I would maintain there is plenty. I suspect we will never know is at the bottom of this. Absence of evidence of a conspiracy is not evidence of absence of a conspiracy, it just means the plotters are good at it.

But that doesn't really answer any questions, does it? It seems IMHO instead to be merely a self-fulfilling circle which does nothing to actually figure out (let alone point informed fingers at) who ordered it and who organised it. It also makes assumptions about false flag operation being involved as part of that, but (again) this is as yet unproven. Mention of Roosevelt WRT Pearl Harbour may not be relevant because AFAIK it is still unproven (it is another conspiracy theory).

 

[Bigfoot73]

No it doesn't answer any questions or point any fingers.That might look like a weak argument to you and rightly so, it's all that's left when what little evidence there is leads nowhere.
i read a 10th anniversary reminiscence by New York citizen and Guardian writer Ed Vulliamy, who mentioned the suspicious way in which various normally conflicted agencies and vested interests co-operated to ensure the building of the WTC. If it's that big a plot then it's hard to conceive of how anybody might go about investigating it.
The Pearl Harbour issue wasn't really a conspiracy, it was mainly Roosevelt acting alone, pressuring his admirals and secretaries to do things like leave some battleships and a couple of carriers in Manila harbour in 1940 for the Japanese to attack during their conquest of the Philippines.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

As good a source as any, and surely the accusation of foul play is less controversial here purely and simply because it was not a complex plot with a multitude of actors.

 

[Jerry_B]

No it doesn't answer any questions or point any fingers.That might look like a weak argument to you and rightly so, it's all that's left when what little evidence there is leads nowhere.

Which could suggest that there was no conspiracy.

i read a 10th anniversary reminiscence by New York citizen and Guardian writer Ed Vulliamy, who mentioned the suspicious way in which various normally conflicted agencies and vested interests co-operated to ensure the building of the WTC. If it's that big a plot then it's hard to conceive of how anybody might go about investigating it.

But that's an entirely subjective view on Vulliamy's part.

The Pearl Harbour issue wasn't really a conspiracy, it was mainly Roosevelt acting alone, pressuring his admirals and secretaries to do things like leave some battleships and a couple of carriers in Manila harbour in 1940 for the Japanese to attack during their conquest of the Philippines.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

As good a source as any, and surely the accusation of foul play is less controversial here purely and simply because it was not a complex plot with a multitude of actors.

But, again, that site is presenting it's own subjective take on it (and it's outlook could be said to be skewed a certain way too).

 

[Bigfoot73]

Which could suggest that there was no conspiracy

.

Without wishing to start another scrap over the evidence from the actual events I'm convinced there was foul play, of which the crucial element is the tweaking of the exercise software. Was it a full-on conspiracy or just the manipulation of a series of parallel clandestine operations with no common purpose or even mutual awareness.
The contents of the hijackers' luggage was nothing more than props for role players in the exercise. For reasons which may require swigs of Holy Water and sniffs of garlic for you to entertain I suspect the 'hijackers' thought those cases contained Ecstasy tabs.

But that's an entirely subjective view on Vulliamy's part.

Not only that it's likely to remain the only published opinion on that particular aspect of the admittedly nebulous theory. I suspect the 9.11 plot was grafted on to the WTC scam by neocon Project for a New American Century types, possibly without the knowledge of the WTC operators. I could spin this ad nauseam but you can see where I'm going .

 

[Jerry_B]

Yes, but none of that actually proves anything, or demonstrates evidence. Okay, I take it as your opinion, but we have to be honest and say that that's all it is. Suspicions and personal convictions aren't enough if you're trying to convince others that there was some sort of covert action/conspiracy taking place.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Well there's plenty of evidence of foul play, which necessitates planning. Unless of course you don't see any evidence of foul play at all in which case there is little point going on with this.

 

[flamesong]

I am interested to hear what Truthers believe, conspiracy theory or otherwise.

If that is the case, I think you are in the wrong place. So long as people are labelled 'conspiracy theorists' because they doubt what their and other governments are telling them, the atmosphere is hardly conducive to a constructive discussion.

If you were really interested in what say, skeptics, believe, why not visit one of the more reputable sites like ae911truth.org?

 

[Jerry_B]

If that is the case, I think you are in the wrong place. So long as people are labelled 'conspiracy theorists' because they doubt what their and other governments are telling them, the atmosphere is hardly conducive to a constructive discussion.

People aren't necessarily labelled as that for those reasons here at the FTMB. If, however, they posit theories about a government that revolve around a conspiracy of some sort, that's a different matter.

If you go back and read all of the 9/11 threads we have here at the FTMB, I think you'll find that constructive discussion has been engaged in over many years.

 

[Jerry_B]

Well there's plenty of evidence of foul play, which necessitates planning. Unless of course you don't see any evidence of foul play at all in which case there is little point going on with this.

The problem is the idea of 'foul play'. Was it actually the case, or is it your interpretation of events?