9/11

[M]

Dtl - logic and experts don't come into this.

All experts are wrong, or are in it with 'the man'.

All conspiracy theorists will quote known science and physics that make sense.

If pushed a little harder they will accept the small flaw in argument A by moving on to argument B, whose flaws lead to C and so on. If you haven't died of frustration (or Buzz Aldrin'd them in the face) argument Z's failings can be explained by moving on to argument A. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

All such arguments are carried out via the media, as they don't have the balls to go up against the experts directly due to the differing responses:

Reporter stares with open mouthed incredulity, and oh's and ah's.

Expert laughs so hard he/she is at risk of a hernia.

But I guess I'm just be naive, the tens of thousands of people involved from all over the world are probably all in on it too, after all, that's far more logical if you think about it hard soft enough.

Martyn.

[DaveSnafu]

Aye, theres nowt like being patronised first thing in a morning, anything the american insecurity services say should be taken with a big pinch of disbelief.
When I was a lad they used to threaten us with nuclear fire,(better dead than red), well guess what ?, the same idiots are back, this time they have decided it were better we all live in fear of muslims and they us.
The two biggest control structures need us to fear each other.
The sooner we wake up and kick the god botherers out the better.
The "truth" is never safe in the hands of the religious.

[Heinz]

The sooner we wake up and kick the god botherers out the better.
The "truth" is never safe in the hands of the religious.

Never a truer word were spoke....

Heinz

[dtl]

Interesting how you bring religion into it;

Religion is based on beleif and faith, with no evidence.

Just like the 911 conspiracy theory.

[mespilus]

Interesting how you bring religion into it;

Religion is based on beleif and faith, with no evidence.

Just like the 911 conspiracy theory.

Agreed.

Never did find the 'seconded' button.

[M]

Interesting how you bring religion into it;

Religion is based on beleif and faith, with no evidence.

Just like the 911 conspiracy theory.

Proof denies faith. The complete lack of proof, provides complete faith. Simples.

(Nobody mention the Babel Fish in case God is watching).

Martyn.

[Ivan]

Personally, I don't think we need any conspiracy theory for the towers collapsing. You'd hope that anyone clever enough to mastermind such a conspiracy would also be clever enough to realise the effects of the 'retaliation' on terrorism (or was that the plan?!)

The two conspiracies/cover-ups that I see are:

1)Like many people, I spent a fair bit of the day watching the news channels/programmes. During the day, there was a BBC report stating that there was celebration on the streets of Libya/Iraq/somewhere else - sorry can't remember where. They showed pictures of jubilant muslims laughing and singing. This turned out to be 'library footage' - which was therefore in very bad taste, and potentially inflamed anti-muslim views. Much later on the same evening - I think about 1am - there was a BBC report with some video, showing suspected US retaliation, where fighter planes were bombing an Arab(?) country in a suspected retaliation attack. The next day, there was no further mention of this bombing raid, and I never heard anything more about it. Did it actually happen? Were the BBC mistaken? Was it made up? Was it covered up?

2)The fourth plane crashed before reaching its target. At the time, the official explanation was that the passengers rebelled, and the terrorists set off a bomb which they had on board, causing the plane to explode and crash before it reached its intended target. Eye witnesses interviewed at the time said there were fighters escorting the plane. Several years after, I watched a reconstruction. This went along similar lines. In the last few days I watched a Discovery reconstruction together with interviews of family members, various US services etc. The story has changed - the passengers still rebel, but they are successful, and so the hijacker pilot flies the plane into the ground on purpose (apparently he says this is what he is doing and is recorded on the flight data recorder). The reconstruction centres around the bomb threat. Several victims' family members make a point of repeating the bomb threat fact. Air Control towers accidentally hear the pilot telling the crew there is a bomb (because he accidentally presses the transmit button as well as the 'talk to the passengers' button - doesn't sound very likely to me). The escorting fighters ie the ones on standby in case of national emergency or threat, have no weapons on board. One pilot explains that he would have to fly into the wing of the airliner and then eject should it be necessary. The planes are scrambled too late, are 200miles from the target aircraft at the time it crashes. Are these on-standby intercept planes really unarmed? Dubya states that he authorised the fighters to fire on any civilian aircraft in the skies, but it is made clear that this never happened. If the USA really did fire on a plane full of passengers, how on earth would this be explained to the American people? Would it even be allowable under the US Constitution? Would this be a good reason for a cover-up? The plane crashed in a remote area, where any incident would have been easier to cover up. This is, in my opinion the most suspicious aspect of the 9/11 incidents.