• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

September 11th: The History of 9/11

@ Dr_Baltar - I think I did need to apologise (even facetiously) because my harmless post seemed to cause you to be so offended that you used profanity to indicate your anger (and it was anger and not humour).

@ Ted - Aw, shucks, you don't need to apologise to me Ted; you were right, I was being tongue in cheek to counter the arguments used against mine and to further bolster my proposition that there is plenty fishy about 9/11 and 7/7, and that they are possibly connected.

It's not as if everything can be dismissed as a bizarre coincidence.

Long ago when debating with JerryB (who has gone quiet for a while) I proposed that I would list all the coincidences - the idea being that if you put them all together then they cannot be so easily dismissed.

I think that some people would still dismissed them all though, one at a time of course.
 
coldelephant said:
@ Dr_Baltar - I think I did need to apologise (even facetiously) because my harmless post seemed to cause you to be so offended that you used profanity to indicate your anger (and it was anger and not humour).

I can assure you my post was not intended to be angry or humorous.
 
The evolution of a conspiracy theory

It wasn't only the Twin Towers that collapsed on September 11. A third World Trade Center tower that wasn't hit by the planes also fell. As a report into Tower 7 prepares to publish its findings, Mike Rudin considers how this conspiracy theory got to be so big.

....

Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people.

A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

In the UK a survey by the BBC's The Conspiracy Files, carried out by GfkNOP in 2006, found that 16% of those questioned thought there was a "wider conspiracy that included the American government".

This summer will be a key moment for those who question the official explanation of what happened on 9/11, the self-styled "9/11 truth movement".

Nearly seven years after the terrible events of that September day, the US authorities are due to publish the final report on a third tower that also collapsed on 9/11. Unlike the Twin Towers, this 47-storey, 610-foot skyscraper was not hit by a plane.

And Tower 7 has become a key issue for "truthers" like Dylan Avery, the director of the internet film about 9/11 called Loose Change.

"The truth movement is heavily centred on Building 7 and for very good reason a lot of people are very suspicious about what went down that day," he says.

Avery points out that Tower 7 housed some unusual tenants: the CIA, the Secret Service, the Pentagon and the very agency meant to deal with disasters or terrorist attacks in New York - the Office of Emergency Management. And some people think Tower 7 was the place where a 9/11 conspiracy was hatched.

The official explanation is that ordinary fires were the main reason for the collapse of Tower 7. That makes this the first and only tall skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire. Yet despite that all the thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were carted away and melted down.

The way official bodies have investigated Tower 7 at the World Trade Center has made some people think they're hiding something. Its destruction was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

An inquiry by the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building for emergency generators. But its report said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed. That was in May 2002.

The task has now fallen to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) based at a sprawling campus near Washington DC. For more than two-and-a-half years, scientists there have been studying Tower 7.

Inevitably the officials have been criticised for being slow and even of being frightened to publish.

But the lead investigator at NIST, who heads up their World Trade Center inquiry, Dr Shyam Sunder, says that two-and-a-half years is typically how long an aeroplane crash investigation takes. He added that only in the last few years did they begin to hear criticism from the "truth" movement.

"It's only at the very end in 2005 that this group became more vocal and we found them coming to some of our meetings. But for a long time they were not even present. It wasn't the delay that really caused them, they just woke up one morning and decided to take this on as an issue."

Soul searching

In April 2005, the first thousand DVDs of Dylan Avery's Loose Change movie were pressed. It cost just $2,000 to make. It was a critical moment for the development of the movement. The makers of Loose Change claim it has now been viewed by more than a hundred million people.

Steven Jones, a former physics professor at Brigham Young University, who has become the leading academic voice in the movement, first watched a video of the collapse of Tower 7 in the spring of 2005. But when he did, he said he was taken aback as a physicist.

The American architect Richard Gage's conversion came in 2006 when driving along he heard an independent radio station interviewing the theologian David Ray Griffin.

"I had to do some real soul searching and some research. And the more I discovered the more disturbed I became and realized I was looking for... the architects and the engineers."

Finding that they hadn't really entered the fray by then, Gage decided he had to act.

"It just came to me, I had to start an organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth."

The fifth anniversary of 9/11 was a huge moment for "truthers". Under the media spotlight protests intensified, websites were spawned and internet films proliferated.

With the publicity also came the "debunkers", challenging the "truthers" at every stage.

After Loose Change came a website called Screw Loose Change. And internet film 9/11 Mysteries was followed by Screw 9/11 Mysteries.

Conspiracy splits

And the "truthers" have fought back. When the US technology magazine Popular Mechanics launched a book called Debunking 9/11 Myths, it was countered with a book by David Ray Griffin called Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

Over time the scale of the alleged conspiracy has grown and grown, encompassing not just sections of the Bush administration, intelligence, but also the fire service, the police, first responders, official investigators, experts, the building's owner, and the media, and, oh yes, even the BBC.

And over time schisms have opened up in the 9/11 "truth" movement.

So-called "no-planers" believe that commercial aeroplanes did not actually crash into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania. Some have suggested lasers from outer space were used. :shock:

"Planers" believe aeroplanes were used but argue that only controlled demolitions can explain the collapses of the World Trade Center towers.

Then there are the LIHOPs and MIHOPs. Most "truthers" are MIHOPs - they think the government Made It Happen On Purpose, planning and orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.

But LIHOPs believe the government just Let It Happen On Purpose, to allow them to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a clampdown on civil liberties.

Into this febrile atmosphere comes the final official report on 9/11.

This summer we will find out whether NIST's report has answered the many questions that have been raised, or whether it will suffer the same fate as the Warren Commission on the assassination of President John F Kennedy and merely add fuel to the conspiracy theories.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7488159.stm
 
A BBC News video which claims that the mystery of Building 7 may soon be solved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7491020.stm

If you remember the computer reconstruction of the trajectory of the Magic Bullet that killed JFK, then the computer reconstruction of the collapse of B7's metal skeleton may provide a whiff of nostalgia.

Unintentionally humorous.
 
Pietro Mercurios:
If you remember the computer reconstruction of the trajectory of the Magic Bullet that killed JFK, then the computer reconstruction of the collapse of B7's metal skeleton may provide a whiff of nostalgia.

Unintentionnally humorous.

In my mind, the most humorous example of "scientific" treachery on a large scale is the French official handling of the radioactive cloud from Chernobyl, in 1986. Supposedly, it stopped exactely at the french border! French customs are very efficient, indeed! This tall tale was supported by all official "scientists", at the bequest of the political establishment. Incredibly, with a few exceptions, the media bought it. Hilarious, indeed. But I suppose that people who suffered later from cancer did not find it so funny...
Some say that such large scale conspiracies, involving government officials, high ranking scientists, and the media, are impossible. This example only should settle the matter.

rynner:
Some have suggested lasers from outer space were used :shock: .

In the case of the WTC, it looks like a misdirection. But the existence of such weapons is certainly not absurd in itself. Only ten days later, when the AZF factory exploded, witnesses did describe, independantly and consistently, something similar.
 
BBC2 tonight (Sunday) 9pm.
Conspiracy Files. Third Tower.
One of the mysteries of 9/11 is the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center, which was never hit by a plane. Is it possible that it was brought down by a controlled demolition?
 
IMHO, there is more to this than we are told. There is no doubt 2 planes crashed in to the main 2 towers, that was witnessed.
It bothered me that the buildings went down in such an apparently 'contolled' manner - i.e into their own foot prints (more or less) but there were explanations for this and they were publicised. I still felt there was more we were not told.
I remember hearing on the news or in the papers at the time that an adjacent building had to be knocked down for fears of it's structure being damaged as a result of the obvious devastation nearby. Was that building 7? I don't remember any reference to a building collapsing in the manner that building 7 did at the time, and only last week really started to hear of it in the news. So more stuff I believe do not know all the facts of.
Hence I am inclined to go along with the conspiracy theory to some degree, but am swayed the other way by this:
I do not consider the American government to be any more competent than ours; ours can barely run the basic services. Disks and other media containing personal details of hundreds of thousands of people are lost regularly. If 9/11 was as some say, orchestrated by some government body, surely someone would have found more complelling evidence than hitherto, most likely by accident or in a skip somewhere.
 
If the US government was as incompetent as the UK government appears to be (and I think that the UK incompetence is actually very much deliberate in at least some cases) - then yes, expect to find evidence all over the place.

However, most of the evidence in the US was cleared away almost immediately; and so the official reports relied on testimonies, models and simulations along with expert experience and knowledge to ascertain that in fact the official story is completely true and cannot be otherwise.

Of course, one has to remember that no building of that size has had a plane crash into it or had to face that weakening impact plus the fire.

For that reason alone no building of that size has collapsed in that manner before or since without it being a controlled demolition - and unless another plane crashes into another building - no building ever will again.

It kind of makes speculation a bit tough.
 
Why is all the focus on 911 about how the buildings came down? or if it was a plane or missile that struck the Pentagon? or if flight 93 was shot down or not?Even if the official account of all these things is absolutely true, 911 still looks to be an 'inside job'.There is no benign answer to the many questions & the circumstances (big picture) make it look even more likely to be an inside job.
War is big business and none more so than the cold war against communism.It employed millions of Americans.It's the only thing that allowed the American military to get so big.When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 we all knew what that meant!It meant that either there would be a huge scale down of the military/procurement (at the expense of millions of good paying American jobs) or a replacement would have to be found to keep the defence dollars flowing.The 'war on terror' looks like a made to order replacement.
Coming as it did (911) at the hands of the very same CIA assets (former?) that we had used to hasten the demise of the Soviet Union in the first place (by giving them their own Vietnam in Afghanistan) & now having them step forward to 'fill the shoes' of the Soviet Union by providing the excuse to keep the defence dollars flows does indeed look pretty damn suspicious.
Add to that the fact we we now have tons of military force right on top the world's largest reserves of a finite resource that our economy is completely dependent upon (wouldn't have been possible without 911 or during the cold war) or the huge ulterior motive we had for invading Afghanistan (pipeline) or the Patriot act which had to have been written before 911 etc,etc,...well,you get the picture.It doesn't look good.
Well,now,I'll know you'll come back & say,"prove it".So,to cut you off at the pass I'll just say to you,"prove you conspiracy theory".You can start by telling me how Al Queada had benefited from 911.Our response was predictable.
 
You can start by telling me how Al Queada had benefited from 911.

They want war, if they can get the Middle East up in flames, in their concept of how the world works, the Muslim nations will unite to destroy Irsrael and ultimately Western Values embodied in the Great Satan (or whatever the current termis) the USA.

Al quaeda is extremist, nihilist, with an apocalyptic philosophy: it wants a war. A war that in it's vision of things will be can only result in the triumph of Islam and its purification through fire and blood etc...

I'd say for seeding chaos they've done very well.

This way of looking at things isn't unique, there have been fanatics of all creeds and political persuasions that set of down the same road with varying degrees of success (from their viewpoint)....


Fanatic do make useful bogeymen though.
 
Good now compare that with what I posted above and ask yourself Which is a more logical/creditable motive for 911?Who had the means to 'stand down' the American Airforce?Who had the means to specially prepare (Google: Pentagon renovation program) the wedge of the pentagon struck on 911?Who could do that? A 'terrorist' in a cave in Afghanistan? or the USA itself?Who's getting rich from 911?
Why would 'they' (Islamic 'terrorists') want war?They know they can't win.They know Israel (never mind the US/UK) has hundreds of nukes.They aren't crazy as you'd who have us believe.We've seen Iran test their missiles,why just a test?Fire 'em right now at Israel they're crazy,right?What are they waiting for?
Fact is,they live on top of a resource we NEED.It's necessary to send our sons off to fight & die in order to steal it.Therefore 'they' have to be vilified so we will be willing to sacrifice our sons.We couldn't do it before now because the Soviet Union stopped us.It would have been Thermonuclear WW III had we tryed back in '73 or anytime before the collapse of the Soviet Union come on you know that.
 
"Al quaeda is extremist, nihilist, with an apocalyptic philosophy: it wants a war." Quote.

Yet,Al Quaeda is a creation of the CIA,now isn't it?That's their history,right?We all know that?It was originally the Mujahadeen (may have misspelled that,but whatever)What does that tell you?What proof do you have that they are not still CIA?The word of the CIA?The word of Mi5 or 6 or whatever?The word of the mossad?Only the word of people who benefitted from the war on terror?Which theory makes more sense?The 'they hate us for our freedom' (what freedom since 911?...Patriot act/military commision act 2006) theory...or the 'we need an excuse to project our power to steal their oil now that the Soviet Union is out of our way' theory'? I know which makes more sense to me.
 
You're mixing up your Taliban and Al Quaeda, the former developed out of the groups the US backed against the Soviets, more on the "my enemies enemy is my friend principle", rarely a good idea. Al quaeda, grew out of a movement that doesn't think that Islam in Saudi Arabia is enforced rigorously enough and the the House of Saud, is corrupt tool of the west
 
Timble2 said:
You can start by telling me how Al Queada had benefited from 911.

They want war, if they can get the Middle East up in flames, in their concept of how the world works, the Muslim nations will unite to destroy Irsrael and ultimately Western Values embodied in the Great Satan (or whatever the current termis) the USA.

Al quaeda is extremist, nihilist, with an apocalyptic philosophy: it wants a war. A war that in it's vision of things will be can only result in the triumph of Islam and its purification through fire and blood etc...

I'd say for seeding chaos they've done very well.

This way of looking at things isn't unique, there have been fanatics of all creeds and political persuasions that set of down the same road with varying degrees of success (from their viewpoint)....


Fanatic do make useful bogeymen though.

Yes, they make useful boogeymen. They are evil, ruthless and irrationnal. Their behaviour is easy to explain this way, they're evil, period. Very convenient for all kinds of manipulations. If all the jihadists wanted was to bring war to the Middle-East so that the Muslim nations would unite, they had a perfect opportunity with Iraq. They ruined it for the benefit of the occupant. The neo-conservative "thinkers" were in the need of a new concept to divide the Iraqi resistance and Muslim nations. They invented the "Shia Crescent". It was pure propaganda, but it worked. Thanks to "Al Qaeda", whose shifts strangely seem to mimick perfectly the needs of US foreign policy.

In April 2004, the US occupation forces in Iraq faced a Sunni Arab revolt. Shia Arabs friended the insurgents and came to their rescue, Sunni families posted Moqtada Al Sadr pictures in their home. This was the birth of a national resistance movement. A formidable threat to the occupants. Coincidentally, at the same time Al Zarqawi started to attack savagely Shia Arabs. How convenient. Earlier, most jihadists were pan-islamist, anti-Shia hostility was a negligible part of their doctrine (if they existed at all). Now they acted as if they tried to promote the new US agenda. We can see now what the results were: first, Sunni Arabs vs Shia Arabs, then Sunni Arabs vs Sunni Arabs. The resistance was broken and civil war followed, to the only benefit of US troops. Arab states were in a dismay, Saudis planned an intervention in Iraq, the region was in chaos, while the US policy rised hostility towards Iran. At the same time, a new jihadist group emerged in Lebanon, set in turmoil by a series of unsolved political assassinations. Both were without proof blamed on Syria, and a new civil war was narrowly avoided. Al Qaeda seems to follow the old plans of dividing Near and Middle Eastern into their ethnic and religious components. In fact it seems to follow systematically the neo-imperialist agenda.
 
@Analis

Well put, and another one of those strange coincidences (the extremists plans helping out or following the neo-con agenda and the new world order).
 
Following discussions, five pages of assorted tit-for-tattery and rehashing of the same argument (none of which brought anything new to the table) have been hived off and put somewhere safe, where they can sit quietly and think about it for a while.

To all Conspiracy regulars (he said as obliquely as possible) - unless something startling happens, or new evidence which is actually evidence emerges, perhaps these threads should lie a little fallow for a while? I won't lock them, but please demonstrate some judgement when citing "evidence". Just because someone on You Tube says something it doesn't make it true.
 
(As posted in Quitters and Shapeshifters on WSI) Coldelephant, at his own request, has had his account deleted. His posts remain intact.
 
Quite ironic when you consider the success of the Fortean Times has largely been built on cuttings, clippings and dubious news items from Pravda.
 
Noted, but in mitigation I'll point out that 9/11 has bred its own particular brand of punditry, none of which has presented anything verifiably new other than reinterpretations of already existent evidence. It was the first outrage of this scale to be captured in real time, and in the age of the internet. It's a moment in time, dissected into slides and endlessly picked over, but I fear nothing new will out for a long time to come, if ever (I think we'd have heard by now if anyone was going to turn supergrass.) Same goes for JFK, Diana and any number of other conpiracies (or indeed non-conspiracies that merely look decidedly iffy.)

Other Fortean phenomena, by contrast, tend to be dynamic, shifting, multi-event, multi-location and often still happening.

Or just ridiculous.

I'll also add that Coldelephant asked to be removed some time prior to my post asking for more discretion when bringing snippets to the table in this particular subject.
 
Noted, but in mitigation I'll point out that 9/11 has bred its own particular brand of punditry, none of which has presented anything verifiably new other than reinterpretations of already existent evidence.

And Ufology?

The endless repetition and 'new' evidence of the Roswell Incident?
The 'latest' about Betty and Barney Hill?
Or Mothman for that matter?

Does this mean that contributors are to be asked to be more judgemental if presenting The Sun's latest UFO flap? Evidence or just another snap of a kite or a tin of travel sweets reflected in the driver's windscreen.

How about orbs? We can never have enough orb pictures on the site.
Just because a subject is popular, does that make it less Fortean?
 
jimv1 said:
Noted, but in mitigation I'll point out that 9/11 has bred its own particular brand of punditry, none of which has presented anything verifiably new other than reinterpretations of already existent evidence.

And Ufology?

The endless repetition and 'new' evidence of the Roswell Incident?
The 'latest' about Betty and Barney Hill?
Or Mothman for that matter?
Ufology itself is turning up new stuff day by day, though as you rightly point out much of it is wishful thinking plus simulacra. And yes, the "classic" cases are frequently revisited - but there are a lot of them, all being ambiguous have a great deal of room for nuance and multiple conclusion, and collectively they don't hog nearly as much bandwidth as 9/11 which happened in front of everyone on the bleedin' planet from every conceivable angle.
Does this mean that contributors are to be asked to be more judgemental if presenting The Sun's latest UFO flap? Evidence or just another snap of a kite or a tin of travel sweets reflected in the driver's windscreen.
By all means mention it, but maybe don't base an entire line of argument on it and get most affronted when others question it.
How about orbs? We can never have enough orb pictures on the site.
Just because a subject is popular, does that make it less Fortean?
There aren't that many on here, TBH, and I think you'll find very few posters on this site who believe orbs are anything more than digital camera side-effects.

Perhaps one in a million orbs are actually some sort of psychic manifestation - I don't know that, and nor does anyone else - but I'm prepared to believe it could be so. However, for the moment, in all probability any orb pic is most likely a dust mote or whatever.
 
stuneville said:
Noted, but in mitigation I'll point out that 9/11 has bred its own particular brand of punditry, none of which has presented anything verifiably new other than reinterpretations of already existent evidence.

...
And yes, the "classic" cases are frequently revisited - but there are a lot of them, all being ambiguous have a great deal of room for nuance and multiple conclusion, and collectively they don't hog nearly as much bandwidth as 9/11 which happened in front of everyone on the bleedin' planet from every conceivable angle.

What do you mean exactely by there?


I pity those who believe that JFK was killed by the lone nut LHO... They must be afraid everytime they try to push a door... :mrgreen:
 
Analis said:
What do you mean exactely by there?
What I mean by there is that whereas Ufology has a plethora of cases on which to call, and pick to death, none of them has any actual conclusive physical back-up, so have acres of wiggle-room. However Conspiracy, almost alone in the Fortean field, often does have indisputable proof of an actual event occurring but generates a wealth of controversy regarding the cause, and in the particular case of 9/11 has spawned an entire industry. In the context of this board we've tended to get "new" evidence about 9/11 in the form of a cited YouTube pundit saying "Look! what about this...?" only to be shot down over the course of a few pages, followed six months and some twenty seven pages later by someone else citing the self-same pundit, which is invariably dismissed by an old lag saying "but we covered this twenty seven pages ago", etc etc. The whole thing has become so mired in its own repetitiveness that TBH I'm surprised anyone is still reading it, let alone contributing - hence my appeal to not leap upon every "new" 'net utterance as a breakthrough.
 
Or, not actually shot down, as the case may be.

Suffice it to say, on the 9th of September 2001, two of the World's tallest buildings were struck by jet liners, after a short pause of about an hour, or so, they both collapsed completely, in an astonishingly short period of time, in enormous clouds of pulverised concrete, glass and asbestos dust. Some time later that same afternoon another quite dissimilar building also collapsed completely, in an abrupt manner. In all three cases one of the main reasons given for the collapse of these steel framed buildings, was 'the unique manner of their construction.'

This we know. Beyond that is the 'Reality Gap,' an information vacuum left by the refusal of many people to willingly suspend their disbelief and which continues to demand to be filled in by something other than the unsatisfyingly full of holes, 'official version.'
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Or, not actually shot down, as the case may be.

Suffice it to say, on the 9th of September 2001, two of the World's tallest buildings were struck by jet liners, after a short pause of about an hour, or so, they both collapsed completely, in an astonishingly short period of time, in enormous clouds of pulverised concrete, glass and asbestos dust. Some time later that same afternoon another quite dissimilar building also collapsed completely, in an abrupt manner. In all three cases one of the main reasons given for the collapse of these steel framed buildings, was 'the unique manner of their construction.'

This we know. Beyond that is the 'Reality Gap,' an information vacuum left by the refusal of many people to willingly suspend their disbelief and which continues to demand to be filled in by something other than the unsatisfyingly full of holes, 'official version.'

Erm, the 11th of September surely? This could render all previous theories obsolete. :lol:
 
Hmmmm. It has to be said the whole WTC thing is a relatively recent event so it's no wonder it dominates the thread.

Forteana wouldn't be the same if there was a time cut off in which to discuss all this stuff. Indeed, I see the latest FT is carrying stories from the 1940's on Rocket Men and a UFO incident in Wales in 1974.

It doesn't seem to have anything on the abduction of Betty and Barney Rubble this month though.
 
Back
Top