9/11 The Conspiracy Files

[qwertyman]

Funniest was the lads from Loose Change stating (without irony) that the engineers from Popular Mechanics did not know what they were talking about. Whilst a bunch of slackers from some spit & daub town in upper NY state. Well, hell they must be experts in everything from aeronautics to structural engineering..

It does amaze me that some people who are obviously as intelligent as Jazzz(concert pianist, Oxbridge graduate) can believe a load of guff such as loose change, Joe vialls, David Shyler & David Icke produce.

Bunch of slackers?

Former Directors of the FBI? Senators? Army Generals?
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Professors Question 9/11:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Look, if you want to convince us that it was all a plot with hollographic missiles, a building built with the explosives in it, or just the fault of the Catholics (who're framing the jews). Then there's a thread on it in the Politics forum. This thread is about the TV program rather than the general topic.

 

[8ball]

It left me wondering why the conspiraloons do it.

Sure, it's nice to have a hobby and that and everyone gets a warm fuzzy feeling of self-importance when they go to conventions but the ridicule and double-think must get to you after a while.

I guess it's like line-dancing that way

 

[jæd]

It is said if you go into town you are picked up on 40 different CCTV cameras. But in the capitol city of the USA, not a single camera filmed any jumbo jet flying across the carpark of the Pentagon. There were five full-sized CCTV cameras pointing down from the side of the Pentagon hit by the plane alone!

You do know that the Pentagon isn't in the center of DC, don't you...? And, seeing as its full of the US's military knobs, it's not suprising there aren't tons of cameras pointed at it...

But then you're yet another conspiraloon pillock and things like "facts" don't apply to you...

 

[qwertyman]

Conspiraloon pillocks:

Former Directors of the FBI? Senators? Army Generals?
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Professors Question 9/11:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

 

[mhwfc]

If anyone hasn't seen it and have satellite, it's on BBC 2 Wales (channel 991) tonight at 11.20, it wasn't on in Wales last night as the snooker overran (I blame David Icke )

 

[jæd]

Conspiraloon pillocks:

Former Directors of the FBI? Senators? Army Generals?
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Professors Question 9/11:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

Do you have anything interesting or useful to say Mr Thread Derailing Troll...?

 

[editor]

Professors Question 9/11:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

Wow! Just look at some of those professor's qualifications!

Professor Emerita of Religious Education
Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Religion
Former Instructor
Former Professor of Pastoral Ministry

 

[editor]

There were five full-sized CCTV cameras pointing down from the side of the Pentagon hit by the plane alone!

And what about the many, many eye witness accounts? Or are you just going to ignore them?

And how fast do you think bog standard CCTV camera record at? 30fps?!!

 

[1927]

I think that to label anybody who doesn't swallow the official line 100% a conspiraloon is plain wrong. I do not believe in hologram planes and some of the other nonsense, but I do not believe the official line completely.

There are too many unanswered questions, or questions which the CIA, FBI et al refuse to answer, which leads me to believe there may be things which they are attempting to hide. It is this refusal which fuels the conspiracy theories.

If there is film of the plane hitting Pentagon why don'y they release it and put an end to that particular conspiracy? I really don't understand how a plane could make such a small whole and leave so little evidence of its existence. Loose Change claims that the engine parts found at the crash site are not compatible with the type of engines fitted on that plane, but the film last night just showed the engine parts and said that proved the plane did exist.

On the collapse of WTC it just put the conspiracy theory and then said what the official line was and considered theory disproved. basically the prog last night was attempting to cover too much in too short a time, if they really had a mind to they could have considered each theory for an hour and made a whole season of progs out of this.

The biggest single reason my doubts of the official story are the quotes from Bush stating that he watched the first plane hit the WTC and thought "That's one bad pilot", how could he possibly have seen the first plane crash when the footage was not seen by anyone until the next day?. That really is scary stuff and the implications are huge.

Guess I will be considered for ever more a conspiraloon now, but I can assure you I'm not a nutter just think there are some things which need answering!

 

[pk]

Actually much of the CCTV in the US would be 30fps these days, that's their TV standard, dunno about the parking lot camera though... Most old CCTV would record at 1 second intervals to save hard disk space and preserve image quality.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The biggest single reason my doubts of the official story are the quotes from Bush stating that he watched the first plane hit the WTC and thought "That's one bad pilot", how could he possibly have seen the first plane crash when the footage was not seen by anyone until the next day?. That really is scary stuff and the implications are huge.

We all know just how many faux pas GWB makes on a regular basis, expecting him to get it right when not reading from a prepared script and when the pressure is on is asking a bit much of him don't you think?

 

[1927]

We all know just how many faux pas GWB makes on a regular basis, expecting him to get it right when not reading from a prepared script and when the pressure is on is asking a bit much of him don't you think?

A mistake is one thing. but he has repeated this story atleast twice!

 

[Grandma Death]

The whole conspiracy thing strikes me as so incredulous I'm surprised anyone with half a brain believes that shit. Its not that I dont accept the notion of shady cabals in this world-but for such a massive conspiracy to work so many people wouldve had to be in on it for an event of this scale-and I just cant see that happening.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

A mistake is one thing. but he has repeated this story atleast twice!

So? He's an idiot, they make the same mistake several times before they give it up.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

So? He's an idiot, they make the same mistake several times before they give it up.

GWB's claims to have seen the plane on TV are untrue

--the school didn't even have a TV, the principal has claimed.

However, that he lied on this certainly doesn't prove an 'inside job' it just shows he is a confabulator (like his predecessor). There is no link of any sort between this false GWB claim and any 'complicity'--that it is being used so much illustrates the intellectual poverty of the 9/11 cult.

 

[Groucho]

You should pay more attention to the programmes you watch if you want to make such a detailed 'assessment'.

The films spent the longest part on the conspiracy that 4,000 Jews were evacuated before hand - considering how imortant it is to debunk the conspiracy why spend time on this ridiculous claim that only racists make? I guess to slur the other conpiracy theroies by assosciation. Weak.

The film did refute this claim in detail but spent no more time on it than on the other claims. It is a claim that has been perpetrated by many of the conspiracy theorests I have heard. Important I think to provide the facts torefute this.

Likewise the man with the most airtime in the show was some Hollywood director, with X-Files music in the background wasting the valuable time of the show to eulogise about how people who believe in this stuff can't deal with the reality, and some psycho-bable about stories and acceptance - purile and patronising.

He didn't have anything like the most airtime.

Building 7 clearly had all the hallmarks of a controled explosion and floor 23 was a CIA HQ. A preliminary gov report said it was brought down by fire, but that this was nonetheless "highly unlikely" (impossible). A five year ongoing government report, still unpublished, is not expected to find any other cause of destruction other than a fire on one of the floors. For me as someone on the fence that is clearly sus - buildings like that don't fall down in a controlled explosion stylee (as the beeb man kept pointing out) because of one fire, and the BBC show made that point without any refutation.

Actuallly the BBC reported that the building suffered significant structural damage by debris from the Twin Towers and caught fire which raged out of control because the sprinkler system could not work as the collapse of the towers had cut off the water supply.

The CIA continues to refuse to show the video footage that shows the Pentagon crash. The BBC went thoroughly over the 4 frame footage available and clearly couldn't show any plane - although the attempt to draw one in was quite comic. THe whole Pentagon thing could be laed to rest with that footage - CIA says they wont release, admiting they have more footage.

The BBC actually said that the CIA had refused to confirm or deny the existance of more footage. The footage they released only after a lot of pressure was hardly exciting though.

THe ultimate conclusion the Beeb made was that there was a conspiracy after 9/11 to cover it up by the FBI, CIA and government, but not before. This statement was made despite failing to really nail doubts about a pre 9/11 conspiracy. There is no doubt that there was a concerted effort to hide the events and block inquiries at every turn after the attack, and the film finished on this note.

Nope. The BBC acknowleged no such cover up. The report was of admission that the CIA had failed to tip off the FBI that two AQ operatives were at large until after they had gone into hiding. The report acknowledged evidence ofen unwilingness to come clean on such incompetence.

Are you sure you are looking at events dispassionately?

 

[1927]

GWB's claims to have seen the plane on TV are untrue

--the school didn't even have a TV, the principal has claimed.

However, that he lied on this certainly doesn't prove an 'inside job' it just shows he is a confabulator (like his predecessor). There is no link of any sort between this false GWB claim and any 'complicity'--that it is being used so much illustrates the intellectual poverty of the 9/11 cult.

But why lie about it and to make a joke about a bad pilot is in such bad taste that it should bring his suitability for public office into question. He could not have see the first plane crash on broadcast tv as it was not shown, so the issue of the school having a tv is irrelevant. So if he watched the first plane hit what was he watching. By the time he saw any broadcast footage of a plane crash it could only have been the second plane, by which time he was aware that it was terrorist attack so the thought of it being a bad pilot would not have entered his head. So what footage was he watching, presumably in his limo? Do you not see anything worrying in this?

 

[Blagsta]

People make up false memories all the time. Some people however are more prone than others. As laptop says, its confabulation.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

But why lie about it and to make a joke about a bad pilot is in such bad taste that it should bring his suitability for public office into question. He could not have see the first plane crash on broadcast tv as it was not shown, so the issue of the school having a tv is irrelevant. So if he watched the first plane hit what was he watching. By the time he saw any broadcast footage of a plane crash it could only have been the second plane, by which time he was aware that it was terrorist attack so the thought of it being a bad pilot would not have entered his head. So what footage was he watching, presumably in his limo? Do you not see anything worrying in this?

Yes, GWB is a liar--but as you say, this lie didn't really help his public image. He is a known serial liar, going back to his time in the National Guard, alcoholism infidelity & so on.

What makes you think he saw any footage at all? Are you implying that some 'secret' CIA or whoever footage was taken and he saw it, but nobody else did? Why could not such footage be passed off as tourist footage? Are you implying he had some footage digitally transmitted to him while at the school? This when his mobile phone barely worked. And how does any of this relate to Controlled Demolition, No Planes, Holograms & other BS.

I repeat: this whole story is a non sequitur in in terms of anything other than proving GWB is a lying tosser.

How exactly, does this story specifically show an 'inside job'? This is what is known as a rhetorical question btw--because I have never seen any 9/11 cultist provide an answer.

 

[1927]

Yes, GWB is a liar--but as you say, this lie didn't really help his public image. He is a known serial liar, going back to his time in the National Guard, alcoholism infidelity & so on.

What makes you think he saw any footage at all? Are you implying that some 'secret' CIA or whoever footage was taken and he saw it, but nobody else did? Why could not such footage be passed off as tourist footage? Are you implying he had some footage digitally transmitted to him while at the school? This when his mobile phone barely worked. And how does any of this relate to Controlled Demolition, No Planes, Holograms & other BS.

I repeat: this whole story is a non sequitur in in terms of anything other than proving GWB is a lying tosser.

How exactly, does this story specifically show an 'inside job'? This is what is known as a rhetorical question btw--because I have never seen any 9/11 cultist provide an answer.

Please read my post above. I stated that I didn't believe in hologram planes etc., but believe there are some questions that require answers. I am not a conspiraloon but there are some areas of concern for me.

 

[dogmatique]

The biggest single reason my doubts of the official story are the quotes from Bush stating that he watched the first plane hit the WTC and thought "That's one bad pilot", how could he possibly have seen the first plane crash when the footage was not seen by anyone until the next day?. That really is scary stuff and the implications are huge.

Scary that the president of the United States *might* have access to footage before you? Pff. Get real. Means nowt. Especially as he was probably referring to the footage we'd all seen on the first day.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Please read my post above. I stated that I didn't believe in hologram planes etc., but believe there are some questions that require answers. I am not a conspiraloon but there are some areas of concern for me.

I apologise if this doesn't apply to you--but 9/11 cult members I have come across use phrases like 'there are questions' 'we need to get at the truth' as a substitute for answering questions when put under pressure.

I repeat: how does Bush' lie about having seen some footage (or even as is suggested above being allowed privileged access to some other footage) prove 9/11 was an inside job?

It is an unfair game 9/11 cultists play, demanding others answer questions but not doing so themselves.

So, I repeat: how does Bush' claims about footage support the argument 9/11 was an 'inside job'??

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Scary that the president of the United States *might* have access to footage before you? Pff. Get real. Means nowt. Especially as he was probably referring to the footage we'd all seen on the first day.

Bollocks, he'll have been watching it on CNN like the rest of us.

His comment is still an irrelevance.

 

[WouldBe]

I repeat: how does Bush' lie about having seen some footage (or even as is suggested above being allowed privileged access to some other footage) prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Maybe 'king kong' was the in-flight movie. GW probably wouldn't know the difference.

 

[1927]

Scary that the president of the United States *might* have access to footage before you? Pff. Get real. Means nowt. Especially as he was probably referring to the footage we'd all seen on the first day.

OK he was watching the same footage as the rest of us, the second plane crashing, by which time we all knew that one plane had already crashed into WTC. And GW's recation was to think "that's a bad pilot" ffs. But of course he wasn't watching the second plane crash, because when the second plane crashed into WTC he was sat in a school room reading a story about a pet friggin goat!

 

[1927]

I apologise if this doesn't apply to you--but 9/11 cult members I have come across use phrases like 'there are questions' 'we need to get at the truth' as a substitute for answering questions when put under pressure.

I repeat: how does Bush' lie about having seen some footage (or even as is suggested above being allowed privileged access to some other footage) prove 9/11 was an inside job?

It is an unfair game 9/11 cultists play, demanding others answer questions but not doing so themselves.

So, I repeat: how does Bush' claims about footage support the argument 9/11 was an 'inside job'??

I dint mention anything about it being an inside job.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

I dint mention anything about it being an inside job.

in which case, other than the claim showing GWB to be a stupid liar with false memory syndrome (which I have conceded), what does this story show, otherwise?

How is it relevant as proof of anything else?

And if it isn't, why do 9/11 cult members keep referring to it as something significant/meaningful?

 

[1927]

in which case, other than the claim showing GWB to be a stupid liar with false memory syndrome (which I have conceded), what does this story show, otherwise?

How is it relevant as proof of anything else?

And if it isn't, why do 9/11 cult members keep referring to it as something significant/meaningful?

As I have tried to explain above my position on all this is that while not believing in all the fruitloopery i do believe there is something not quite right with the official story. There are some parts of the story which sit uneasily in my mind, the Bush tv thing being one. I dont know and never will I guess, where the smell of fish eminates from, but a fishy smell there is! i dont know what any of it means, but the longer the authorities refuse to answer questions the fishier it appears to be.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

As I have tried to explain above my position on all this is that while not believing in all the fruitloopery i do believe there is something not quite right with the official story. There are some parts of the story which sit uneasily in my mind, the Bush tv thing being one. I dont know and never will I guess, where the smell of fish eminates from, but a fishy smell there is! i dont know what any of it means, but the longer the authorities refuse to answer questions the fishier it appears to be.

I don't like the official story either, but more to the point here, it is clear you are not going to answer my point about what Bush' lie on this point means. No surprise there. I won't waste my time asking you again.