Osama Bin Laden Dead!

[Zingari]

that's a brilliant find Steven

and well done to Jock "The Ink Slinger" i love that title

[zubi]

I concur

Good find steven

[mancunianfox]

Point taken I understand why some people would find it hard to believe that the government would lie about, or be involved in something like this.

I sometimes wish that I did believe the official story. It's bad enough to think or know that there are terrorists such as Bin Laden out there, but when you believe that some of our leaders in the west are involved in the whole business it's a hundred times more worrying!!

I can understand why people would not want their government to be lying to them. I don't believe either story and would like more investigation into the destruction.

The official story has the problem of how the buildings collapsed, question marks over WTC7 collapsing and not the buildings surrounding it, failure to act upon intelligence suggesting that further attacks on New York where being planned and why the hi-jacked aircraft where not intercepted.

The conspiracy theory, particularly the controlled explosion fails to adequately explain how such a huge controlled explosion could be co-ordinated covertly, who planned and ordered the attacks and to what end, how the huge amount of people required to orchestrate such a huge attack could be convinced to stay silent and how the attacks where executed flawlessly with an inhuman level of efficiency that the US government rarely displays.

The videos posted have been interesting and I think the topic is important but the inside job theorists are still a long way from providing a satisfactory narrative.

[Zingari]

I can understand why people would not want their government to be lying to them. I don't believe either story and would like more investigation into the destruction.

The official story has the problem of how the buildings collapsed, question marks over WTC7 collapsing and not the buildings surrounding it, failure to act upon intelligence suggesting that further attacks on New York where being planned and why the hi-jacked aircraft where not intercepted.

The conspiracy theory, particularly the controlled explosion fails to adequately explain how such a huge controlled explosion could be co-ordinated covertly, who planned and ordered the attacks and to what end, how the huge amount of people required to orchestrate such a huge attack could be convinced to stay silent and how the attacks where executed flawlessly with an inhuman level of efficiency that the US government rarely displays.

The videos posted have been interesting and I think the topic is important but the inside job theorists are still a long way from providing a satisfactory narrative.

I take your point and have some sympathy with it but it's the basis of the problem though,

Not only do conspiracy theorists have to prove that the government are lying , but also provide the whole sequence of events with watertight evidence to back it up and that is not going to happen is it ? mainly because they have hold of all the evidence or are free to destroy it at their will .

So therefore , we are left with this limbo land whereby they can lie to us but we can't do anything about it because we can't provide facts of what really happened

It's a bit like being told that a man with 3 knives in his back has committed suicide , and if you doubt the story you must then prove who actually put the knives there plus , when where how and why

Surely knowing the government is lying is actually proof of some guilt or they will continue as they have been proven to on many times before , but always of course from a safe distance in time

[mancunianfox]

I take your point and have some sympathy with it but it's the basis of the problem though,

Not only do conspiracy theorists have to prove that the government are lying , but also provide the whole sequence of events with watertight evidence to back it up and that is not going to happen is it ? mainly because they have hold of all the evidence or are free to destroy it at their will .

So therefore , we are left with this limbo land whereby they can lie to us but we can't do anything about it because we can't provide facts of what really happened

It's a bit like being told that a man with 3 knives in his back has committed suicide , and if you doubt the story you must then prove who actually put the knives there plus , when where how and why

Surely knowing the government is lying is actually proof of some guilt [/b]or they will continue as they have been proven to on many times before , but always of course from a safe distance in time

Well we can only suspect that they are lying

Conspiracy theories don't need to present that kind of watertight case to catch on. At the moment the inside job theories are not remotely feasible either and certainly they haven't presented an argument yet that is easier to believe than the official story. The evidence that JFK wasn't assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald is compelling enough for so many people to believe that the official version isn't true but I don't think the 9/11 theories have presented a case like that (yet).

[Zingari]

Well we can only suspect that they are lying

Conspiracy theories don't need to present that kind of watertight case to catch on. At the moment the inside job theories are not remotely feasible either and certainly they haven't presented an argument yet that is easier to believe than the official story. The evidence that JFK wasn't assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald is compelling enough for so many people to believe that the official version isn't true but I don't think the 9/11 theories have presented a case like that (yet).

i have had a keen interest in the JFK case for over 30 years and can tell you that belief in any other scenario than Oswald was a lone nut assassin was met with absolute derision by most "sensible people"at least until about 30 years after the event, so we are actually in the very early stages of this conspiracy's life if that is anything to go by .

it seems to be gradually seeping in to people that jfk was a conspiracy , but at this safe distance in time , the implications of it are all but lost . this is what the passage of time does to conspiracies , it loses the impact of the implications at the same time as it gains acceptance

dave von kliest explains it very well but the whole film is about 90 mins long

to me it's like history repeating itself

[Webbo]

It's not a matter of believing everything the govt says, I'm quite a sceptical person, there are loads of things I don't believe, global warming, passive smoking etc.

It's a case of believing a credible story ,terrorists flying a plane into a building, why wouldn't they? Against an incredible story, a govt would fly a plane into it's own buildings, in front of thousands of witnesses, as an excuse to invade Afghanistan, a worthless, flyblown shit hole.

[mancunianfox]

It's not a matter of believing everything the govt says, I'm quite a sceptical person, there are loads of things I don't believe, global warming, passive smoking etc.

It's a case of believing a credible story ,terrorists flying a plane into a building, why wouldn't they? Against an incredible story, a govt would fly a plane into it's own buildings, in front of thousands of witnesses, as an excuse to invade Afghanistan, a worthless, flyblown shit hole.

This.

@Zingari - I have seen the documentaries regarding inside job theories but I have yet to see a good one. All seem to be chasing evidence to support a predetermined theory rather than the other way around and are sensationalist. They are very quick to criticise the official line of events but fail to analyse their own theories critically.

[Zingari]

It's not a matter of believing everything the govt says, I'm quite a sceptical person, there are loads of things I don't believe, global warming, passive smoking etc.

It's a case of believing a credible story ,terrorists flying a plane into a building, why wouldn't they? Against an incredible story, a govt would fly a plane into it's own buildings, in front of thousands of witnesses, as an excuse to invade Afghanistan, a worthless, flyblown shit hole.

Ive got a lot of empathy for this opinion , truly I have , because it was how I saw the events of 911 unfolding from the time they happened until at least 5 or so years later.

They have to be telling us the truth , we can see with our own eyes planes crashing into buildings and we can hear with our own ears lots of talk of evil terrorists plotting away in the mountains trying to kill us all .

But many things about what is supposed to have happened simply do not add up , and there's no reason for me to go through any of them again , because anyone who holds this viewpoint simply is not going to listen unless they are prepared to accept that the alternative explanations while being contrary to their thought process and strongly held beliefs , may still be possible .

Basically what I'm saying is , believing something is true solely because any alternative explanation may be too horrific to contemplate is not enough .

Gradually , over the next 40 or 50 years maybe , more and more people will gradually start to disbelieve the official line as is obviously now happening with the JFK assassination . but of course any relevance and implications of the full meaning of what it would have meant at the time , have all but gone down the memory hole . It just becomes a parlour guessing game that we can all safely indulge ourselves because it's all just history now and those sort of things can't happen anymore because we're all so much smarter now .

Aren't we ?

Oh and btw , USA were planning to invade Afghanistan well before 911

[l444ry]

Ive got a lot of empathy for this opinion , truly I have , because it was how I saw the events of 911 unfolding from the time they happened until at least 5 or so years later.

They have to be telling us the truth , we can see with our own eyes planes crashing into buildings and we can hear with our own ears lots of talk of evil terrorists plotting away in the mountains trying to kill us all .

But many things about what is supposed to have happened simply do not add up , and there's no reason for me to go through any of them again , because anyone who holds this viewpoint simply is not going to listen unless they are prepared to accept that the alternative explanations while being contrary to their thought process and strongly held beliefs , may still be possible .

Basically what I'm saying is , believing something is true solely because any alternative explanation may be too horrific to contemplate is not enough .

Gradually , over the next 40 or 50 years maybe , more and more people will gradually start to disbelieve the official line as is obviously now happening with the JFK assassination . but of course any relevance and implications of the full meaning of what it would have meant at the time , have all but gone down the memory hole . It just becomes a parlour guessing game that we can all safely indulge ourselves because it's all just history now and those sort of things can't happen anymore because we're all so much smarter now .

Aren't we ?

Oh and btw , USA were planning to invade Afghanistan well before 911

What do you think of these JFK links, Zingari?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlpL7qZxPhA&feature=related

http://www.rense.com/general62/oswald.htm

[Zingari]

Yes thay are very interesting l444ry

Obviously over the number of years that i've been interested in the JFK story I've seen these and perhaps dozens more claiming to be proof that there was a massive plot .

Some probably are genuinly what the claim , whereas others may of course are obviously not.

I don't have either access to all the real evidence , or even to ability to analyse it even if i did .

There is such a patchwork quilt of conspiracy theories regarding this event that people such as me do not have a cat in hell's chance of knowing what really happened but have to content ourselves in the belief that we are sure that the official story is not true , and the implication of that is that there had to have been a massive cover up which leads me to conclude that the assassination took place for some other ulterior motive or motives that we can only guess at .

My guesses are these ;

Dulles wanted him out of the way because of his treatment forcing him out of the CIA and trying to greatly restrict the CIA ,

Military industrial complex wanted him out of the way to continue lucrative involvement in vietnam ,

The anti Castro Cubans wanted revenge over bay of pigs fiasco

The mafia wanted him out of the way because of RFK s obsession with crippling their illegal activities (Carlos Marcello likened this to cutting off the head of the dog ( john ) rather than the tail ( robert ) because if you cut off the tail, the head will still bite you

For what it's worth and in a nutshell , my favourite theory ( and admittedly that's all it is ) is that there was a conspiracy involving CIA agents loyal to Alan Dulles (and maybe including Johnson) who had the opportunity to enlist anti castro cubans and /or mafia hit men to to the dirty work , whilst they took care of the cover up and arranged the access ( security stand downs etc ) and possibly some rogue FBI agents to take care of hindering the investigation etc

JFK and RFK had made so many enemies within government , the military and organised crime syndicates that it's quite possible to believe that some sort of covert alliance was formed between these groups to rid themselves of what had become a common enemy .

Did this covert alliance ( or later variations of it )form just this once solely for this purpose and then disband never to meet up for other missions ?

i guess it didn't , but your guess is as good as mine if you want to disagree

[Jon the Hat]

Oh and btw , USA were planning to invade Afghanistan well before 911

Did someone say "Karzai the oil executive with plans to build a pipeline in his back pocket"?

[Babylon]

Can I just say that the whole "It was designed to withstand a plane crash" thing doesn't really hold much of an argument, not one that you can base your argument on anyway.

The Titanic was unsinkable you know.

We're talking about a building designed in the early 60's. Compare what was done to the towers to make it "plane proof", against what's done in modern day buildings then there will be a big difference.

A bit like buildings in the 60's that are "earthquake resistant", yet compared to todays standards they wouldn't be classed as that at all and would still receive a lot of damage compared to newer buildings.

[Jackirius]

Zingari is just trying to become the next Empty.

[Bellend Sebastian]

My Peugeot 306 was designed not to breakdown constantly at enormous expense, but it still did.

Interestingly enough though, a Boeing 767 once crashed into it and it was barely scratched, although the alarm went wrong again a few days later but this may have been a coincidence.

Thoughts to the families

[Babylon]

My Peugeot 306 was designed not to breakdown constantly at enormous expense, but it still did.

Interestingly enough though, a Boeing 767 once crashed into it and it was barely scratched, although the alarm went wrong again a few days later but this may have been a coincidence.

Thoughts to the families

I was designed to be a hunter gatherer.... now I sit in front of this computer arguing we people that have no evidence at all.

[Guest Bilo]

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand a plane strike, that much is true.

The problem is they were designed in the 1960s when jet airliners were smaller, slower and had a shorter range meaning they carried less fuel than in 2001.

Thus, the WTC was designed to withstand a strike from a Boeing 707 at up to 300mph if the plane was running low on fuel and trying to get back to JFK Airport. They were not designed to withstand much larger and heavier 767s being slammed into them at much higher speeds while fully laden with hundreds of tons of jet fuel.

It's like the difference between being slapped in the face and kicked in the face with steel toe-capped boots. One will leave a red mark on your cheek, the other will knock your fvcking teeth out.

[Zingari]

I was designed to be a hunter gatherer.... now I sit in front of this computer arguing we people that have no evidence at all.

why does anyone need to provide evidence to doubt what they are being told or shown is true ?

usually in court the opposite is true , the onus is on the accuser to provide the evidence that a party is guilty

the accuser in this case is the american government accusing OBL of masterminding the attack with 19 named suicidal hijackers , half of whom are still alive.

and regarding the issue of whether or not the buildings were airliner strike proof , the scientists and engineers must have put up some pretty good arguments that they were at the time , so to disbelieve and mistrust their calculations and formulae etc now , means we can all be very selective in what scientists/engineers tell us, therefore i choose not to believe the engineers /scientists at nist

[Zingari]

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand a plane strike, that much is true.

The problem is they were designed in the 1960s when jet airliners were smaller, slower and had a shorter range meaning they carried less fuel than in 2001.

Thus, the WTC was designed to withstand a strike from a Boeing 707 at up to 300mph if the plane was running low on fuel and trying to get back to JFK Airport. They were not designed to withstand much larger and heavier 767s being slammed into them at much higher speeds while fully laden with hundreds of tons of jet fuel.

It's like the difference between being slapped in the face and kicked in the face with steel toe-capped boots. One will leave a red mark on your cheek, the other will knock your fvcking teeth out.

and in both cases you will not fall down symmetrically in on yourself but will be projected away from the impact of said boot

ps 767s and 707s are not that dissimilar and the buildings were designed to withstand multiple air strikes of this type .

are the architects / building contractor's being sued for making claims about building designs that are not true ?

surely they must be

ps edit;

so many keep conveniently forgetting that WTC7 was not hit by an airliner , therefore was not soaked in jet fuel and was built in 1987 but still collapsed in a similar manner

[Finnegan]

Can we rename this thread now please? 'The Loony Bin' sounds apt.

[Babylon]

why does anyone need to provide evidence to doubt what they are being told or shown is true ?

You don't, I will tell anyone to question what they are told. But most posts in this thread go way past questioning, guilt has already been decided. I will make my mind up on all available facts, and in this case I believe the official story is MOSTLY true.

Why? Because the notion of thousands being involved in such a cover up is just not realistic.... Someone would speak out against it. And of course, most of all, not one piece of decent evidence has been provided to the contrary. Every bit can be explained in one way or another, for every architect you produce there will be another 10 that say the exact opposite. For every eye witness report there will be more that say the opposite. For every person saying it's against the laws of physics there are more who say it's not at all.

None of us are expects in physics, or building design etc. So aren't making these conclusions using evidence, we are doing it via other sources. Reading what other people have said about it. You believe the government did it, so you are listening to people with the same opinion as you. Some of whom are exceptionally dodgy people who are mostly already involved in the belief of cover ups.

Also, certain sections of consipracy theory groups have lied and presented evidence in such a way as to make their argument look valid. Taking snippets of eye witness reports that make things look damning, but when you read the whole thing in context the person is saying something completely different. If the information freely available was so damning they would have no reason to do that.

Now, if you say that governments around the world have exploited what happened, and used it as an excuse to do other things. Then I would say the possibility is quite high that people have done that.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Let me get this straight.

JFK wasn't actually killed, but went undercover to train for 40 years as a crack CIA agent to take down rogue operative Tim Osman. Accompanied, by his sidekick, the Grassy Gnome, he infiltrated American Airlines and United Airlines. He was able to parachute out at the last minute (certain views show a small speck flying away from the cockpit before impact), though Grassy and Lee Harvey were killed in the attack. This gave him the leverage to go in undercover with troops in Afghanistan and infiltrate Tora Bora, until he rose to enough importance to be Tim's gopher. Returning with pizza (salsa seafood, spicy beef, no anchovies (who does?)) he took his opportunity to brainwipe Osman, accidentally shooting his wife in the process.

Tim is now back in the system and being reprogrammed. Johnny 63's current whereabouts are unknown, though Thai businessmen in the English Midlands are worried that several times they have thought they had seen Marilyn Monroe in the crowd at football matches. This of course could just be part of the same mental illness that makes anyone invest huge sums of money in football, but no one can really be sure.

Tellingly, Leicester City have been practising a new set piece.

It is always the same move.

Back and to the left, back and to the left.

[Zingari]

You don't, I will tell anyone to question what they are told. But most posts in this thread go way past questioning, guilt has already been decided. I will make my mind up on all available facts, and in this case I believe the official story is MOSTLY true.

Why? Because the notion of thousands being involved in such a cover up is just not realistic.... Someone would speak out against it. And of course, most of all, not one piece of decent evidence has been provided to the contrary. Every bit can be explained in one way or another, for every architect you produce there will be another 10 that say the exact opposite. For every eye witness report there will be more that say the opposite. For every person saying it's against the laws of physics there are more who say it's not at all.

None of us are expects in physics, or building design etc. So aren't making these conclusions using evidence, we are doing it via other sources. Reading what other people have said about it. You believe the government did it, so you are listening to people with the same opinion as you. Some of whom are exceptionally dodgy people who are mostly already involved in the belief of cover ups.

Also, certain sections of consipracy theory groups have lied and presented evidence in such a way as to make their argument look valid. Taking snippets of eye witness reports that make things look damning, but when you read the whole thing in context the person is saying something completely different. If the information freely available was so damning they would have no reason to do that.

Now, if you say that governments around the world have exploited what happened, and used it as an excuse to do other things. Then I would say the possibility is quite high that people have done that.

you say you believe the story is mostly true ( which bits do you doubt and why ?) because of the implications of it not being true make any alternatives seem too horrific to contemplate or too unbelievable to have been possible , and believe me i do have sympathy with that but as i've said before many times , to believe in something mainly because the alternatives are difficult to face and difficult to explain is not a reason to believe .

none of us, i agree, have any real evidence to prove what really happened or didn't happen, and are relying on other interpretations

so we are left with nothing other than what we each choose to believe based on available film footage interviews with fireman , survivors etc hearing explosions etc .

Just please ask yourself that if you were shown film footage of the collapse of wtc7 with no prior knowledge of what had happened to it , do you think it likely that you would have assumed it was a random damage/ fire collapse or a controlled demolition ,( it walks like a duck and it quacks that way )

i have seen an interview with a dutch demolition expert being shown the footage of the collapse not knowing what the implications were . he had no doubt in his mind that the collapse was caused by controlled demolition , but when he was told it was WTC7 falling on 911 , he immediately started to doubt his own judgement and was physically shaken by it , (but still maintained that his opinion stood)

would he have been the slightest bit concerned by any other building ?

edit; regarding the highlight ;

they do speak out quite often and quite often lose their jobs , so the incentive to speak out is pretty limited. as an example , just search for Kevin Ryan of "underwriter's laboratories" and read up about his story or watch what he says on youtube etc ( not that i think it likely that you will )

[Steven]

Before starting any replies in this thread everyone should ask themselves this question. "Do you think that your elected leaders are less or more moral than you"? If you believe that that they have the same moral or greater moral standards than you then you will disbelieve "conspiracy theories". If you believe they are less moral then I suggest you are likely to believe in "conspiracy theories".

Politicians set the moral tone and live or die by it.

[zubi]

You don't, I will tell anyone to question what they are told. But most posts in this thread go way past questioning, guilt has already been decided. I will make my mind up on all available facts, and in this case I believe the official story is MOSTLY true.

Why? Because the notion of thousands being involved in such a cover up is just not realistic.... Someone would speak out against it. And of course, most of all, not one piece of decent evidence has been provided to the contrary. Every bit can be explained in one way or another, for every architect you produce there will be another 10 that say the exact opposite. For every eye witness report there will be more that say the opposite. For every person saying it's against the laws of physics there are more who say it's not at all.

None of us are expects in physics, or building design etc. So aren't making these conclusions using evidence, we are doing it via other sources. Reading what other people have said about it. You believe the government did it, so you are listening to people with the same opinion as you. Some of whom are exceptionally dodgy people who are mostly already involved in the belief of cover ups.

Also, certain sections of consipracy theory groups have lied and presented evidence in such a way as to make their argument look valid. Taking snippets of eye witness reports that make things look damning, but when you read the whole thing in context the person is saying something completely different. If the information freely available was so damning they would have no reason to do that.

Now, if you say that governments around the world have exploited what happened, and used it as an excuse to do other things. Then I would say the possibility is quite high that people have done that.

Personally I believe that for 9/11 to have been an inside job didn't need thousands to have activly participated. In order for a flase flag operation to occur you would need to fool not only the citizens in your country but also the military including some of the highest ranking individuals. If the military knew about this then surely some of them would have the integrity to come clean and not want to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For something like this to occur would only need the go ahead from the highest ranking elite in the world. Now i'm probably not as well informed as someone like Zingari or El Empty, but I would have to question the role that the Bilderberg group played in all of this. The highest ranking elite from all over the world including presidents, royalty and the elite in world banking come to meet eachother every year to talk about who knows what behind closed doors in a very secrative and heavily secure location.