Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Zingari]

Some of them are contradictory but the overwhelming mass of eyewitness reports don't back up your theories, which is why you ignore them or play them down

You're becoming a lone voice in the wilderness on this thread. That's lone voice, not lone gunman.

By the way Danny Jowenko's dog was found dead this morning. Choked on a bone. They're coming for you next

I keep trying to say that i don't have any real theories , just suspicions and alternative possibilities

yes maybe more eyewitness accounts favour the government line , but how much of what we believe is plnted there after what we actually witness

For instance if you witnessed the events at the pentagon and were then told that a plane had been hijacked and slammed into the pentagon , then in all probability this is what you would believe you saw , they don't have to be involved in the conspiracy .

as i said eye witness accounts can be very contradictory , and you choose to ignore the ones that don't fall into your belief in what happened

[OzFox]

I keep trying to say that i don't have any real theories , just suspicions and alternative possibilities

yes maybe more eyewitness accounts favour the government line , but how much of what we believe is plnted there after what we actually witness

For instance if you witnessed the events at the pentagon and were then told that a plane had been hijacked and slammed into the pentagon , then in all probability this is what you would believe you saw , they don't have to be involved in the conspiracy .

as i said eye witness accounts can be very contradictory , and you choose to ignore the ones that don't fall into your belief in what happened

Most of the witnesses at the Pentagon were on the nearby interstate stuck in traffic. They witnessed a big silver airliner clip lamp-posts and crash into the building. Not much room for ambiguity there?

I'll grant you it's amazing how a dozen people can witness a traumatic event, and chances are you'll get a dozen small variations in their accounts. People are weird.

[Zingari]

Most of the witnesses at the Pentagon were on the nearby interstate stuck in traffic. They witnessed a big silver airliner clip lamp-posts and crash into the building. Not much room for ambiguity there?

I'll grant you it's amazing how a dozen people can witness a traumatic event, and chances are you'll get a dozen small variations in their accounts. People are weird.

While I can quite understand how and why you feel these eyewitness accounts are so important , but I really don't think they are and it's not like some sort of, " I've got more eyewitness accounts than you've got so I must be right" , it doesn't work like that.

I really think there can be plenty of ambiguity .

Imagine sitting in your car on the freeway ;

Have you ever experienced seeing a plane come from out of the blue and explode into a building. I reckon the noise alone must have been enough to make most people put their hands over heads and double over.

Please try to imagine this scenario, because it’s not like watching something on TV. How many of these eyewitnesses actually saw anything other than a big blurred image as it flashed by , and then saw the resultant explosion ?

Later, when they get home and are told repeatedly and unambiguously that an airliner had crashed into the building, that really would be enough to make them actually believe that is what they saw. ( this wouldn't make the eyewitnesses part of any big conspiracy, far from it ),

anyway hope to speak to you soon OZ , marco etc if you've not got too bored

[fleckneymike]

While I can quite understand how and why you feel these eyewitness accounts are so important , but I really don't think they are and it's not like some sort of, " I've got more eyewitness accounts than you've got so I must be right" , it doesn't work like that.

I really think there can be plenty of ambiguity .

Imagine sitting in your car on the freeway ;

Have you ever experienced seeing a plane come from out of the blue and explode into a building. I reckon the noise alone must have been enough to make most people put their hands over heads and double over.

Please try to imagine this scenario, because it’s not like watching something on TV. How many of these eyewitnesses actually saw anything other than a big blurred image as it flashed by , and then saw the resultant explosion ?

Later, when they get home and are told repeatedly and unambiguously that an airliner had crashed into the building, that really would be enough to make them actually believe that is what they saw. ( this wouldn't make the eyewitnesses part of any big conspiracy, far from it ),

We would also have to ignore all the physical evidence at the scene in order for your scenario to even begin making sense.

If we even for a second entertain the concept of a conspiracy, the attack on the Pentagon makes no sense at all. If the purpose of the attacks was to ensure the US entered into armed conflict with Afganistan and Iraq then the Pentagon attack is slightly excessive, I'm sure the deaths of 3000 people in New York would suffice, heck one tower demolished would more than likely garner enough public support for retaliatory action.

This conspiracy is on a par with the Moon Landings in terms of bad science. Conspiracy theory is big business, people make fortunes from dreaming up hair brained plots to sell to very sad individuals.

[jonno24]

We would also have to ignore all the physical evidence at the scene in order for your scenario to even begin making sense.

If we even for a second entertain the concept of a conspiracy, the attack on the Pentagon makes no sense at all. If the purpose of the attacks was to ensure the US entered into armed conflict with Afganistan and Iraq then the Pentagon attack is slightly excessive, I'm sure the deaths of 3000 people in New York would suffice, heck one tower demolished would more than likely garner enough public support for retaliatory action.

This conspiracy is on a par with the Moon Landings in terms of bad science. Conspiracy theory is big business, people make fortunes from dreaming up hair brained plots to sell to very sad individuals.

To attack the Pentagon makes perfect sense.

Its the symbol of American military and intelligence power.

The majority of terrorist attacks i suspect would be aimed at major buildings or symbols.

But to do all of these in one day with such accuracy ?

These arent just Terrorists these are M&S Terrorists

[Ozwin]

I watched that documentary on ITV yesterday, how did that plane that was heading for Washington crash? I should probably read up on it but they sort of glossed over it like I should already know what happened.

[jonno24]

I watched that documentary on ITV yesterday, how did that plane that was heading for Washington crash? I should probably read up on it but they sort of glossed over it like I should already know what happened.

Think that was the one that crashed into the field ? after the passengers faught back.

United 93 i thin it was called

[fleckneymike]

To attack the Pentagon makes perfect sense.

Its the symbol of American military and intelligence power.

The majority of terrorist attacks i suspect would be aimed at major buildings or symbols.

But to do all of these in one day with such accuracy ?

These arent just Terrorists these are M&S Terrorists

Please, move beyond neurotic sixth form politics. Terrorists flew planes into major US buildings. End of. The US intelligence and military was still on a cold war footing. The CIA watch list was and is massive, putting the clues together is only possible after the event. This bullshit about major corporations doesn't add up economically or logically, stop trying to create a narrative where one already exists.

There may be innaccuracies in the 9/11 report, but to take the leap from error to huge conspiracy is sad and shows a complete lack of knowledge of both science and geo politics. The world is a terrifyingly simple place, bad things happen because we can't stop everything.

[panky and our gang]

One thing I don't understand is given it was the Pentagon that was attacked how come there is only a blurred image of what hit it . You would have thought that such a building as the Pentagon with all it's security would have camera's all over the building and would have footage of every angle of the aircraft that hit it , yet all we see is a blur and not one identifiable image of an aircraft . I'm not saying it did not happen but not one image ?

[jonno24]

Please, move beyond neurotic sixth form politics. Terrorists flew planes into major US buildings. End of. The US intelligence and military was still on a cold war footing. The CIA watch list was and is massive, putting the clues together is only possible after the event. This bullshit about major corporations doesn't add up economically or logically, stop trying to create a narrative where one already exists.

There may be innaccuracies in the 9/11 report, but to take the leap from error to huge conspiracy is sad and shows a complete lack of knowledge of both science and geo politics. The world is a terrifyingly simple place, bad things happen because we can't stop everything.

I agree but lets not kid ourselves and think that the countries we live in are not capable of atrocities on these scales.

If someone has an opinion that 9/11 was a bit dodgy let them have that opinion.

[jonno24]

One thing I don't understand is given it was the Pentagon that was attacked how come there is only a blurred image of what hit it . You would have thought that such a building as the Pentagon with all it's security would have camera's all over the building and would have footage of every angle of the aircraft that hit it , yet all we see is a blur and not one identifiable image of an aircraft . I'm not saying it did not happen but not one image ?

Your not entitled to an opinion if you go against the general consensus that 9/11 was a terrorist job perpertrated by muslim extremists. Well not on this forum anyway.

Ofcourse the countries we live in have never done anything to harm its own citizens or those abroad. Its all about the bad man of the moment.

Take portondown for instance they systematically spreaded the area populated by citizens with chemicals to gauge the reaction to certain chemicals. I believe these are called Chemtrails nowadays.

But like i said no opinion allowed

[Rincewind]

As in many establishments and cities maybe the cameras were turned off, Maybe the CIA have the ta;ppes but not telling anyone. This happens too. Given a choice between The US secret intelligence plotting a top secret plan involving exact timing and secrecy and then firing an undetected missile at the Pentagon or the Pentagon fecking up on security cameras I would go for the latter. Somehow it seems more believable.

[Charl91]

Attention 9/11 Truthers: You're a Turtle

Once upon a time there was a turtle that had a little problem. You see, he didn’t believe he was a turtle. He couldn’t quite put his finger on the reason why, but for some reason, he just knew he wasn’t a turtle. Looking for confirmation, he asked a wolf.

“Am I a turtle?”

“Yes,” the wolf replied, “I eat turtles, and you look like something I would eat.”

“But that’s not a very good reason!” Turtle exclaimed, “you eat many things!”

And Turtle was right. The wolf ate many things. So Turtle asked the hawk.

“What do I look like to you?”

“Well,” said the hawk, “from above, you look like a rock. However, you also move on land and swim in the water. You have green skin, a hard shell and flat feet, therefore I conclude that you are a turtle.”

“That’s not a very good reason either!” said Turtle impatiently. But every single animal Turtle asked agreed with the hawk and the wolf.

So the turtle decided that he should go get an opinion from the third smartest creature on earth: Man (the dolphins and the mice were unavailable for comment).

“I’m not a turtle,” turtle said to Man.

“That’s silly,” Man responded, “You clearly are a vertebrate reptile. Your shell would put you in the Testudines order, and your green skin would likely make you of the Terrapene genus. That’s about as turtle as turtle gets.”

“You use big words, so I’m going to ignore those. I believe I can prove that I’m not a turtle. First, you will observe me travelling at speeds in excess of 60 kilometers per hour.”

So turtle climbed into a car in the nearby parking lot and waited for the owner to drive away. He came back the next day in the same car.

“Oh, you’re still here?” Man said.

“Yes, I travelled far faster than any turtle possibly could. Turtles can’t travel on land more than about 3 kph, and I have travelled at 20 times that speed. That proves I am not a turtle.”

“Actually,” Man responded, “science doesn’t quite work that way. We must take note of all the observations and make testable hypotheses based on those observations. The fact that you can travel at speeds of 60 kph might be interesting proof that you’re a cheetah. But in truth, you’ve really just proved that you’re capable of travelling in a vehicle. That’s a skill that toads, sheep, lawn mowers and bricks all have. You’ve failed to make an adequate testable hypothesis, and that’s why you’re confused.”

“So I’m a cheetah! Or possibly a lawn mower!” Turtle shouted. “And if that isn’t proof enough, watch this!”

And Turtle went to the airport, boarded a plane, and flew to Los Angeles and back.

“You again?” Man sighed when Turtle returned.

“I have just flown across the country. What turtle can do that, I ask you!”

“Again, what you’ve shown is that you can board an airplane. And your ‘flight’ might be interesting proof that you’re a bird, but you certainly can’t also be a cheetah since cheetahs don’t fly.”

“So I’m a bird!” Turtle exclaimed. “It’s confirmed by the scientific method! By the way, why does your story keep changing? First you say I’m a cheetah, and then you say I’m a bird. So which is it? Am I a cheetah or am I a bird?”

“Let’s start over. Can we at least agree that you’re a reptile?”

“Says you, but you also said I was a cheetah, which is clearly not a reptile.”

“Fine, whatever, reptiles don’t have hair. Do you have hair?”

“Hang on.”

Turtle went to the wig shop and purchased a wig.

“Now I have hair!” Turtle said proudly to Man.

“How about this: The most knowledgeable people on earth wrote this book about turtles. In it they have hundreds of pictures with exquisitely detailed descriptions, many of them with little things that look exactly like you. Are you saying you know more than they do?”

“I certainly know more about what is and is not a turtle. Besides, I think my intuition on the matter is worth far more than their silly opinions.”

“No,” man started with a heavy sigh, “All you’ve shown so far is that through a series of asinine demonstrations, you are capable of travelling on an airplane and in a car. The fact remains that you are a shelled, hairless reptile with flat feet and green skin, and by your own experiments, you’ve shown that you have more in common with a lawnmower than most of the other animals on Earth.”

“Don’t be silly, I’m clearly a bird. Although it’s certainly possible that I am a lawn mower.”

Finally, it was decided that Woman should come in to mediate the argument, since Man and Turtle were not getting anywhere debating this question. After hearing their arguments, Woman turned to Man.

“Let me get this straight,” Woman began. “You’ve been having an argument with Turtle wherein he has declared, as a starting point to the debate, that he will be defending an absurd position using absurd reasoning. Your solution to this problem is to present a logically constructed argument based on scientific evidence in the hope that Turtle will have a breakthrough and then self rationalize the truth and declares his folly. You base this hope on the belief that Turtle is a rational, intelligent, self-searching, curious truth seeker, despite all evidence to the contrary. You’re arguing with a creature whose brain has the same relative computing power of a wet chicken McNugget, and you’re shocked he doesn’t respond to scientific reasoning.”

“Yep, that’s about it,” replied Man.

“You’re an idiot.” Woman said. “Ply your hands to some profitable enterprise so that you migh have sufficient funds to keep me on retainer for any future failures in logic and good sense.”

“What about me?” Turtle asked.

“You’re a Turtle.”

"But Man said I'm a lawnmower!"

"Fine, you're a lawnmower. Go drink petrol and eat grass."

That's not how the story goes!

Once upon a time, there was a turtle. One day, the turtle met the government.

The government says: "Did you know, you're not a turtle, you are a lawnmower".

The turtle says: "but I must be a turtle! All the evidence seems to lead to the fact that I'm a turtle".

The Government says: "but we're the government - why would we possibly lie to you?

The turtle says: "You must be right, why would you lie to me? I must be a lawnmower!"

The Government says: "Exactly. Now give me your food. You're a lawnmower, lawnmowers don't need food".

The turtle starves to death.

The end

[shen]

As in many establishments and cities maybe the cameras were turned off, Maybe the CIA have the ta;ppes but not telling anyone. This happens too. Given a choice between The US secret intelligence plotting a top secret plan involving exact timing and secrecy and then firing an undetected missile at the Pentagon or the Pentagon fecking up on security cameras I would go for the latter. Somehow it seems more believable.

The confiscated gas station and Virginia traffic videos fecked up. All but one of Pentagon's videos fecked up, and even that one was apparently useless. The black box contained "nothing useful". The debris picked up by Pentagon people was stashed away and never seen again. A terror attack could well be much more believable than an insider job, but that there wasn't any recorded evidence of the event is just about the most unbelievable story in this thread so far

[panky and our gang]

If the C.I.A had tapes of the aircraft hitting the pentagon why not show them to shut people up ? and why would the cameras be switched off ? to save money ? for feck sake this is the PENTAGON supposedly one of the most secure buildings in the world . The Americans can put a man on the moon but not have adequate security cameras for their top secret building ? no it stinks Turtle or no fecking Turtle .

[zubi]

If the C.I.A had tapes of the aircraft hitting the pentagon why not show them to shut people up ? and why would the cameras be switched off ? to save money ? for feck sake this is the PENTAGON supposedly one of the most secure buildings in the world . The Americans can put a man on the moon but not have adequate security cameras for their top secret building ? no it stinks Turtle or no fecking Turtle .

Haha too true, I suppose they left the camera on the moon and plan to get it back when Al-qaeda relocate there

[Cruss5]

I was convinced at one point that it was a conspiracy but then i'm swinging the way of the terroist attack.

The problem we have with any moment in life like this is that when it happens the terror is so unbelievable that wrong decisions are made, these then get analysed over time. I'm sure everybody in hindsight would change certain decisions.

We nearly went to New York on our honeymoon but decided to go a beach holiday instead, what a decision to make.

The strange part about WTC7 was that before it collapsed BBC reported that it had collapsed even showing the reporter talking about the collapse when you can clearly see in the background it was still standing.

[l444ry]

How likely was it that the Pentagon expected an attack like this, and prepared for it with cameras pointed at the sky 360 degrees and 24 hours a day?

The statistical odds of more than a couple of cameras being recorded, pointing somewhere that the aircraft would have crossed the frame, and actually had the right timing with the frame rate to capture the aircraft would be astronomical.

Some cameras only record when there is movement, but often some movements will happen faster than cameras can begin the recording. If any of the cameras had this type of system, and if they weren't pointed at the lawn the plane flew over, then the plane would have been travelling way to fast to be recorded before impact.

Hence the one short film made public.

This has to be one of the biggest "red herrings" the so-called 9/11 Truthers trot out!!

[Rincewind]

Yes but was the building intact? What was the interior like and how much damage was there. Rescuers were going in and out non stop trying to get people out. I doubt any bomb experts could have walked past the rescue teams and caalmly placed explosives in the right places for a controlled explosion then calmly walk back out without someone saying 'what are you doing here and why are you place explosives there?

A lot of the victims were not found and the rescuers were more concerned about getting people out than looking for explosives. As in the days to follow they were looking for bodies, remains anything that would identify a victim so their loved ones could give them a proper burial Why would they even think about looking for evidence of explosives? And what evidence could be found in thousands tons of rubble? Were they supposed to look for tiny fragments of explosives on the hearsay of a few people who thought the collapse of the building did not look right. From those small numbers of people their ideas have grown and more people have been sucked into their therories and 'experts' have joined in by saying this should or should not happen

So from one or two doubters it's spead worldwide even to a insignificand football forum's messageboard

I'm just skeptic about the skeptism.

[Rincewind]

Would not a lot ofthe cameras in the pentagon had been internal? Cameras not pointing at the lawn would be of no use. They would have been focussed on entrances.

[l444ry]

Would not a lot ofthe cameras in the pentagon had been internal? Cameras not pointing at the lawn would be of no use. They would have been focussed on entrances.

I agee, Nightguard. That's my point. I would have thought they would be more focused on entrances/exits than the sky and elsewhere. So it would hardly be a shock that no video is available.

Even if one was, the Truthers would no doubt claim it was fake anyway!!

[fleckneymike]

Your not entitled to an opinion if you go against the general consensus that 9/11 was a terrorist job perpertrated by muslim extremists. Well not on this forum anyway.

Ofcourse the countries we live in have never done anything to harm its own citizens or those abroad. Its all about the bad man of the moment.

Take portondown for instance they systematically spreaded the area populated by citizens with chemicals to gauge the reaction to certain chemicals. I believe these are called Chemtrails nowadays.

But like i said no opinion allowed

An opinion is allowed but don't be surprised if your idiotic opinion is called out. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it true.

What annoys me most about 9/11 conspiracy theories is the sheer stupidity of it all. Loose Change 1 claimed that the twin towers were destroyed so they could sneak out all the gold underneath in tunnels. The people who perpetuate these lies do so, not to uncover the truth, but rather to sell books, DVD's, conference talks etc.

Portondown didn't text chemicals on the local villagers. They systematically tested nerve agents and chemicals (Sarin gas, CS) on British forces under the guise of testing for a cure to the common cold. Of course you are entitled to your opinion that they 'spreaded the area populated by citizens with chemicals' but your opinion is factually incorrect.

[jonno24]

An opinion is allowed but don't be surprised if your idiotic opinion is called out. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it true.

What annoys me most about 9/11 conspiracy theories is the sheer stupidity of it all. Loose Change 1 claimed that the twin towers were destroyed so they could sneak out all the gold underneath in tunnels. The people who perpetuate these lies do so, not to uncover the truth, but rather to sell books, DVD's, conference talks etc.

Portondown didn't text chemicals on the local villagers. They systematically tested nerve agents and chemicals (Sarin gas, CS) on British forces under the guise of testing for a cure to the common cold. Of course you are entitled to your opinion that they 'spreaded the area populated by citizens with chemicals' but your opinion is factually incorrect.

Your entitled to your opinion ofcourse but i wouldnt say these things if i didnt see documents with it written on in black and white.

But ofcourse the OSA prohibits me from going into detail.

The company DSTL is ey to all of this.

[zubi]

Would not a lot ofthe cameras in the pentagon had been internal? Cameras not pointing at the lawn would be of no use. They would have been focussed on entrances.

I would have thought this would've been the most important areas to cover

I doubt the Pentagon would have any blind spots, you don't want people trying to sneak in

[fleckneymike]

Your entitled to your opinion ofcourse but i wouldnt say these things if i didnt see documents with it written on in black and white.

But ofcourse the OSA prohibits me from going into detail.

The company DSTL is ey to all of this.

The official secrets act prohibits you mentioning it at all.