9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

[glasseye]

Yes, but clearly you haven't. No serious historian argues that the US knew the attack was coming. Show me one who does. By the way, it's spelled Pearl Harbor. Even in Canada.

However one "serious historian" with no axe to grind (a PhD, if that counts), the subject of an interview I photographed long ago for a TV series called "The World At War", discussed that exact topic at length with the crew over lunch. He demonstrated that, in fact some Americans DID know that an attack was imminent, but revealing that knowledge would disclose the fact that they were at least partly successful in decoding Japanese code traffic.

Even more interesting was the choice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as targets. But that's another topic.

You're right. It's proper name. Pearl Harbor it is.

Or the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

Is there a dearth of simple reading around here? From the wikipedia site (before you ask, yes I've read much more detailed discussions of the event)

The report stated:

It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.[8]"

Can you tell the difference between conspiracy and confusion?

Actually most conspiracies attempt to create confusion. Disinformation aids concealment.


Or the Reichstag fire?

Hmmm.... lessee. I lived in Germany for over a year, speak German fluently, and have read various pieces on the history of the rise of the 3rd Reich in German, by German authors.

Du wirdst echt verruckt wenn dir Hitler und Bush zusammen; der erster war unheimlich bose; der zweiter nicht so bose, und nicht so hinterhaltig.

By the way, I've read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich cover to cover; have you?

I have not read that book from cover to cover. Nor does my German exceed the level of "Ich bin auslander. Nich versten" In fact, I'm sure that that contains spelling and grammar errors.

I'm also not sure that your travel history or knowledge of German is germane to the discussion.


Or the JFK shooting?

Um, Oliver Stone's movie is not history.

"Incidents"? Or "Conspiracies"?

History is chock full of false flag "incidents"

Who said ANYTHING about Oliver Stone? Please.
I worked in the movie business for over three decades. I don't need to be instructed on the veracity of the big screen

Explain to me this: Why am I not allowed to be certain, yet somehow you are? Why are you so certain these are all "conspiracies"? The only that even comes close is the Reichstag; that was a conspiracy. However; comparing Bush and Cheney (however much I hate those bastards) to Hitler and the Nazis is, by definition, a failure. Ever heard of Godwin's Law? No? Go look it up. There is no evidence, NONE, that suggests the Bush admin, or even people within the admin, brought about any kind of conspiracy. There is only circumstantial "evidence" that isn't even evidence, and the flimsy belief of those who wish they understood some big secret, because it would help justify their unbalanced world view.

I am NOT certain that there is a conspiracy. I AM certain that there are many unanswered questions regarding 911. I'm also curious why these questions remain unanswered.

Could I be wrong? Sure I could. All I ask is evidence; saying, "Oh, that building could NEVER have fallen that way except for a controlled demolition is STUPID. How can anyone account for every possibility in that scenario? How can we know exactly what would happen in the circumstances given?

I did NOT say that ""Oh, that building could NEVER have fallen that way except for a controlled demolition" You said that.

Which leads us back to this? Why are you (or anyone) so certain it's a conspiracy, yet anyone who disagrees with you is a low-grade moron? Give us evidence when you make your argument. Explain WHY the building could ONLY collapse that way, and NO OTHER WAY.

You insist on accusing me of categorical statements that I've never made. Please don't do that.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor? He was a 13th century cleric who said: "Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate". You ought to try it.

My knowledge of Latin pales in comparison to my knowledge of German. I am, however, familiar with Occam's Razor and agree that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

I remain unimpressed with your Latin quotations. For effective communications, simple English will do nicely.

[Elwood]

I tossed and turned last night wondering how to speak my displeasure of the absolute put-downs coming from someone in the teaching profession, Im really really glad my children won,t be in his classes.

Peter your finesse' with words is almost on the level of your camera skills.

[Sylvester]

I remember before 9/11 there was the conspiracy theory about the Alfred P. Murrah federal building bombing, and how that was an inside controlled explosion, and could not have been done with a outside bomb. There was a conspiracy about the government involved there too, and sounded an awful lot like this theory too.

[RussellK]

I tossed and turned last night wondering how to speak my displeasure of the absolute put-downs coming from someone in the teaching profession, Im really really glad my children won,t be in his classes.

Peter your finesse' with words is almost on the level of your camera skills.

Diane Rehm for moderator! She would know what to do with us.

[ruckman101]

Harbour, harbor. Both are technically correct. One is becoming archaic from lack of favor by the other. Written language evolves. Ain't is now accepted as a valid word in this ye olde world.


neal

[steve74baywin]

Or the JFK shooting?

"Incidents"? Or "Conspiracies"?

History is chock full of false flag "incidents"

I'd like to comment a bit on this one. It sorta fits into my greater view.

My studies have taken me to the belief that money runs this country and that the Federal Reserve created in 1913 by big International Bankers is a huge part of this.
I find this interesting. I offer up the following.
On April 27th, 1961 John F. Kennedy gave a speech, here are some parts of it.

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
"And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of mans deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news-- that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."

On June 4, 1963 President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. With the stroke of a pen he was going to put the Federal Reserve Bank out of business.

November 22, 1963 President John F. Kennedy was assassinated

[ruckman101]

Just some fodder. Actually I pulled this up because it features a clip from Ace Hayes' "Secret Government Seminars". I recognized Ace at a party I went to, and told hime, "Hey you're that conspiracy theorist I've seen on tv." In response he snorted, "Theories!, No theories, facts." I've had respect for him ever since. Ace starts at about seven minutes into the first clip, and continues on the second. He is talking about our current economic collapse...in 1991.

http://www.youtube.com/user/251omega#p/ ... Au6Gx7dLVg
http://www.youtube.com/user/251omega#p/ ... VqxATnbIUw

But for all of the 911 buzz, Bill Olson's show has been a mainstay. Here's his channel. Prolific he is.

http://www.youtube.com/user/251omega



neal

[Lanval]

Diane ~ which "putdowns" are you referring to?

Mike

[Elwood]

Lets see,should I bite??? Na I gots better things to do.

[steve74baywin]

"Hey you're that conspiracy theorist I've seen on tv." In response he snorted, "Theories!, No theories, facts." I've had respect for him ever since.

neal

I watched those two vids. There was many true things stated.

Hey, if I say "No theories, facts" will you have more respect for me?

[ruckman101]

"Hey you're that conspiracy theorist I've seen on tv." In response he snorted, "Theories!, No theories, facts." I've had respect for him ever since.

neal

I watched those two vids. There was many true things stated.

Hey, if I say "No theories, facts" will you have more respect for me?

lol, Ace did do his research, and could back it up. His seminars are being archived from tape, and I hope they get posted on their own soon. I think that's the plan.

I guess conspiracy theories are kind of like stereotypes, there's a grain of truth to both.


neal

[steve74baywin]

lol, Ace did do his research, and could back it up. His seminars are being archived from tape, and I hope they get posted on their own soon. I think that's the plan.

I guess conspiracy theories are kind of like stereotypes, there's a grain of truth to both.


neal

Truths and non truths in all cases.

One conspiracy theorist said something along these lines.
When you start to look outside the box, or the preconceived idea of reality, it is hard, your peers will scorn you, and sometimes you will search into somethings that turn out false, you won't hit a home run every time. It's the price you pay to seek the truth.

P.S. The other guy doing the vid said some good things too. At first I thought the guy doing the vid could be you.

[Amskeptic]

I have some serious questions that have not been answered.
how does a 47 story building, damaged along one facade, fall perfectly downward through its own greatest path of resistance at close to the speed of gravity?

Colin,
Allow me to quote the Wiki on this:

Ah no. I am past Wiki quotes here. The narrative here was written by a person(s) who was well within the lines described by conventional truth.

There are verifiable fire experts who were on-scene at the time.

What the hell is a "verifiable fire expert"?
I seek information from structural engineers, architects, and even materials physicists. Someone trained in fire fighting is not my resource to answer the above as-yet unanswered question. How does a building damaged along one side fall perfectly at close to the speed of gravity through its own greatest resistance???? It defies the laws of physics.

Do you really believe:

1. That a complete, controlled demolition setup for the entire building could have been in place without being observed by the firemen in the building?
2. That those same firemen would keep quiet about a possible conspiracy/inside job, after watching hundreds of their friends and co-workers die in the same conspiracy/inside job?

It is not I who "believes" anything here!
It is you who believes lock stock and barrel that the official scenario is What Happened! I have questions.

I do question the "elevator upgrade" that occurred in both of the towers nine months prior to 9/11, there were armed guards? That doesn't mean "I believe" that explosives were being installed with wireless detonators, it means I question what the "upgrades" were about. The firefighters, I promise you, would not have been informed of the inside job (just like nurses and doctors were not informed of radiation contamination in hospitals in the 50's, a conspiracy which did indeed happen)

I said "I have questions." That means I am NOT in a state of "belief"! Do not tar me as a conspiracy believer nut when, in fact, you are a captive to Official Accounts.

The collapse was an expected outcome ~ the building was evacuated, which shows they knew full well that the building was under extreme duress.

WHAT? The building was evacuated because it was on fire! The QUESTION is why did collapse so incredibly neatly at close to the speed of gravity six hours later. And, if you watch the link to the architect/structural engineer's video, why was the BBC announcing that the building had indeed collapsed long before it actually did? Why were there people on the ground announcing to others that the building was "going to explode"?
Why did many many many firefighters actually report hearing a series of rapid sequential explosions both at the towers and Building7 just before they went down? No other damaged building or skyscraper fire has ever announced their collapse like that, you know why? Because no other skyscraper fire in the history of mankind has ever collapsed.
Thank-you. I have questions yet.

There is no conspiracy, except the conspiracy in the minds of those who wish that there were,

I have questions. I could no more claim that there were conspiracies as claim that there were not conspiracies. Now ask yourself who has the more open mind here. I have questions yet.
ColinHowDoesABuildingFallAtTheSpeedOfGravity??

[RSorak 71Westy]

http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

Great link

[Lanval]

I have questions. I could no more claim that there were conspiracies as claim that there were not conspiracies. Now ask yourself who has the more open mind here. I have questions yet.
ColinHowDoesABuildingFallAtTheSpeedOfGravity??

Your questions have been answered in detail by thoughtful people who spent a long time working towards those conclusions. You reject them because they don't fit your preferred answer.

At least I have the quality of being able to accept answers I don't like.

Fin